issue-1995-12-20•Federal Register final rules — 1995-12-20
Federal Register final rules — 1995-12-20
issue-1995-12-20Federal Register final rules — 1995-12-20Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 95-31053 Annual Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66054-66059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31053]
[[Page 66053]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VIII
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Part 2628
Annual Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 66054]]
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Part 2628
RIN 1212-AA78
Annual Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is amending its
regulations to implement section 4010 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Retirement Protection Act of
1994. Section 4010 requires controlled groups maintaining plans with
large amounts of underfunding to submit annually to the PBGC financial
and actuarial information as prescribed by the PBGC.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank H. McCulloch, Senior Counsel,
Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4116 (202-326-
4179 for TTY and TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 6, 1995, the PBGC published in the
Federal Register (60 FR 35308) a proposed regulation implementing
section 4010 of ERISA. The PBGC received over 20 comments. Section 4010
requires a small number of large controlled groups--those with covered
pension plans that (1) have more than $50 million in unfunded vested
benefits in the aggregate, (2) have missed contributions in excess of
$1 million, or (3) have received funding waivers in excess of $1
million--to file annual financial and actuarial information.
Who Must File--$50 Million Test
In response to comments, the final regulation gives controlled
groups the option of using 100% of the 30-year Treasury interest rate
and the fair market value of assets (instead of 80% of the 30-year rate
and the actuarial value of assets) solely for purposes of calculating
the $50 million threshold test. These are the standards that will apply
for calculating the variable rate premium under ERISA section 4006
after the Secretary of the Treasury adopts revised mortality tables for
post-1999 plan years. Consistent with the post-1999 rules, the PBGC is
conditioning use of the option on the use of prescribed mortality
tables. For now, controlled groups may continue to use GAM-83 mortality
tables. If the PBGC amends the mortality tables under its valuation
regulation before the Secretary of the Treasury's revised tables go
into effect, the updated mortality tables must be used.
The PBGC did not adopt the suggestion that the PBGC waive reporting
if the controlled group's plans meet some prescribed funding percentage
or are fully funded on an ongoing basis. The absolute size of the
underfunding represents a large exposure to the PBGC and, in many
cases, to plan participants.
Who Must File--Missed Contributions and Waivers in Excess of $1
Million
In response to comments, the final regulation provides that missed
contributions will not lead to a reporting obligation if they are paid
within a ten-day grace period. The final regulation also clarifies
that, during the amortization period of a minimum funding waiver, the
waiver will be considered to be outstanding (thereby requiring
reporting) unless there is a credit balance in the funding standard
account that is sufficient to pay the outstanding balance of the waiver
and not available to satisfy future minimum funding requirements.
Exempt Entities
In response to comments, the final regulation exempts the
controlled group from submitting information for de minimis entities
(``exempt entities'') and exempts those entities from all reporting
requirements. An entity is de minimis if it does not sponsor a
nonexempt plan and its revenue, net assets and annual operating income
are five percent or less of the controlled group's revenue, net assets
and annual operating income. Alternatively, the net asset test or the
annual operating income test is satisfied if an entity's net assets or
annual operating income, respectively, is $5 million or less.
Commenters suggested that the PBGC exempt certain foreign members
and new members of controlled groups from the regulation's
requirements. In most cases, foreign corporations should not present
problems for controlled groups. A foreign corporation with U.S.
subsidiaries or a domestic corporation with foreign subsidiaries will
normally include each foreign entity in its consolidated financial
statements. The regulation does not require individual financial
information concerning a foreign company covered by consolidated
financial statements unless it sponsors a U.S. plan. The PBGC will
consider waivers or extensions in the limited cases where foreign
companies are not included in consolidated financial statements and are
not already exempt under the new de minimis exemption.
Other commenters requested a grace period with respect to entities
that become members of a controlled group late in the information year.
The de minimis rule will deal with many of these situations. Filers may
also request waivers or extensions where information about a filer or a
plan is not available by the due date because the filer entered the
controlled group late in an information year.
Actuarial Information
The proposed regulation required filers to provide the value of
plan benefit liabilities and assets, certain participant data matrices,
and an actuarial valuation report containing or supplemented with
specified information. The final regulation eliminates the requirement
that controlled groups routinely submit the participant data matrices.
(The PBGC may request this information.) The regulation permits the
enrolled actuary to qualify the actuarial certification in the same
manner as is permitted for the Form 5500, Schedule B.
Commenters objected to having to determine the value of benefit
liabilities using the PBGC's termination assumptions. The PBGC needs
this information to determine the risk of a transaction to participants
and to premium payers and to determine whether to terminate a plan.
Other liability measures do not reflect plan underfunding on a
termination basis; they can seriously understate the PBGC's exposure
for plans subject to this regulation. The comments confirmed that the
cost of calculating benefit liabilities consists mainly of a one-time
cost for adding the PBGC's termination assumptions to existing computer
programs. The final regulation simplifies the calculation somewhat by
providing for use only of the PBGC's annuity methodology (rather than
both its annuity and lump sum methodology).
Exempt Plans
The proposed regulation exempted reporting for plans with fewer
than 500 participants and plans with no unfunded benefit liabilities
(using the PBGC's termination assumptions), other than plans with
funding waivers or missed contributions. The final regulation keeps but
simplifies this exemption. Solely for exemption purposes, the
controlled group may determine the value of a plan's benefit
liabilities using the plan's retirement assumptions (instead of the
PBGC's expected retirement age assumptions).
[[Page 66055]]
Additional Information
Some commenters questioned the provision under which the PBGC may
require filers to submit additional information within ten days.
Commenters suggested that the response time be lengthened, that the
type of information that may be requested be limited, or that the
provision be deleted.
It is the PBGC's ability to get the additional information quickly
that allows the PBGC to limit the information that controlled groups
must submit on a routine basis. The PBGC will grant extensions of time
to respond where a filer demonstrates that it is making a reasonable
and good faith effort to respond to the information request.
In response to comments, the final regulation clarifies that this
additional information is information that could have been required
annually (i.e., information that is necessary to determine a plan's
assets and liabilities, or the financial status of a filer, for any
period through the end of the information year).
Confidentiality
Some commenters expressed concern about the confidentiality of
filer tax information. The regulation does not require the submission
of a filer's tax return as part of an annual report; it merely permits
the filer to substitute its tax return for the audited or unaudited
financial statements required by the statute. Moreover, the statute and
regulation provide for confidentiality of information similar to that
afforded to Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust submissions. Filers may request
that information they submit not be disclosed to other members of their
controlled group.
Information Year
One commenter suggested that the regulation eliminate the concept
of an information year and that filers instead be required to use the
same reporting year as they use for Form 5500. The information year is
a simplifying measuring period that does not require any new reports.
For most controlled groups the information year will be the same as the
fiscal year on which they prepare their consolidated returns. (The Form
5500 reporting year is based on each plan's plan year, which may not
match the plan years of other plans or the fiscal years of controlled
group members.)
In response to comments, the final regulation excludes the fiscal
years of exempt entities in determining the information year for a
controlled group. The final regulation clarifies that the controlled
group need not restate consolidated financial statements solely because
they include information on entities that are not members of the
controlled group or that are exempt entities.
Due Date
Commenters questioned the due date for information--105 days after
the close of a filer's information year. This due date is coordinated
with the Securities and Exchange Commission's annual reporting date for
public companies. In most instances, controlled groups will have
prepared audited financial statements prior to that date for public
filing and can simply refer to those filings in their submissions to
the PBGC. The actuarial information required by that date is similar to
pension information required by Financial Accounting Standard 87 that
must be included in those financial statements. (The regulation
generally allows other actuarial information to be delayed until 15
days after the filing deadline for the Form 5500.)
If the due date presents problems for non-public companies or in
other unusual circumstances, filers should request extensions of the
deadlines. Filers experiencing problems in preparing or submitting
required information should apply for extensions as early as possible,
rather than shortly before the due date.
E.O. 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
The PBGC has determined that this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the criteria set forth in Executive Order
12866. The provisions of this regulation implement policy decisions
made by Congress in requiring filers to provide audited financial
statements and other required information annually to the PBGC. The
provisions reflect the PBGC's interpretation of the statutory standards
and prescribe the form, time, and manner in which the required
information should be submitted.
Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the PBGC
certifies (for the reasons stated in the proposed rule at 60 FR 35308,
35310, July 6, 1995) that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly,
as provided in section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601, et seq.), sections 603 and 604 do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information requirements in this regulation have
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 1212-0049. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Responses to this collection of information are mandatory. (See
ERISA sections 4002(b)(3) and 4010.) The PBGC needs this information,
and will use it, to identify controlled groups with severely
underfunded plans, to determine the financial status of controlled
group members and evaluate the potential risk of future losses
resulting from corporate transactions and the need to take legal
action, and to negotiate agreements under which controlled groups would
provide additional plan funding. Confidentiality of information
submitted is provided for in Sec. 2628.12 of the regulation. (See ERISA
section 4010(c).)
The PBGC estimates that the average annual burden for this
collection of information will be 13.2 hours and $24,315 for each of
approximately 100 controlled groups. Comments concerning the accuracy
of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing the burden of
this collection of information should be submitted to the PBGC's Office
of General Counsel, 1200 K Street, NW, Suite 340, Washington, DC 20005-
4026.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2628
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, the PBGC is amending subchapter C,
chapter XXVI of 29 CFR by adding a new part 2628 to read as follows:
PART 2628--ANNUAL FINANCIAL AND ACTUARIAL INFORMATION REPORTING
Sec.
2628.1 Purpose and scope.
2628.2 Definitions.
2628.3 Filing requirement.
2628.4 Filers.
2628.5 Information year.
2628.6 Information to be filed.
2628.7 Identifying information.
2628.8 Plan actuarial information.
2628.9 Financial information.
2628.10 Due date and filing with the PBGC.
2628.11 Waivers and extensions.
2628.12 Confidentiality of information submitted.
2628.13 Penalties.
2628.14 OMB control number.
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3); 29 U.S.C. 1310
[[Page 66056]]
Sec. 2628.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) Purpose. This part prescribes the requirements for annual
filings with the PBGC under section 4010 of the Act.
(b) Scope. This part applies to filers for any information year
ending on or after December 31, 1995.
Sec. 2628.2 Definitions.
For purposes of this part--
(a) Act means the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended.
(b) Code means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
(c) Contributing sponsor means a person who is a contributing
sponsor as defined in section 4001(a)(13) of the Act.
(d) Controlled group means, with respect to any person, a group
consisting of that person and all other persons under common control
with that person, determined under part 2612 of this chapter.
(e) Exempt entity means a person who does not have to file
information and about whom information does not have to be filed, as
described in Sec. 2628.4(d) of this part.
(f) Exempt plan means a plan about which actuarial information does
not have to be filed, as described in Sec. 2628.8(c) of this part.
(g) Fair market value of the plan's assets means the fair market
value of the plan's assets at the end of the plan year ending within
the filer's information year (determined without regard to any
contributions receivable).
(h) Filer means a person who is required to file reports, as
described in Sec. 2628.4 of this part.
(i) Fiscal year means, with respect to a person, the person's
annual accounting period or, if the person has not adopted a closing
date, the calendar year.
(j) Information year means the year determined under Sec. 2628.5 of
this part.
(k) Person means an individual, partnership, joint venture,
corporation, mutual company, joint-stock company, trust, estate,
unincorporated organization, association, or employee organization
representing any group of participants for purposes of collective
bargaining.
(l) Plan means a single-employer plan, as defined in section
4001(a)(15) of the Act, to which Title IV of the Act applies.
(m) Plan year means the calendar, policy, or fiscal year on which
the records of a plan are kept.
Sec. 2628.3 Filing requirement.
(a) In general. Except as provided in Sec. 2628.8(c) (relating to
exempt plans) and except where waivers have been granted under
Sec. 2628.11 of this part, each filer shall submit to the PBGC
annually, on or before the due date specified in Sec. 2628.10, all
information specified in Sec. 2628.6(a) with respect to all members of
a controlled group and all plans maintained by members of a controlled
group.
(b) Single controlled group submission. Any filer or other person
may submit the information specified in Sec. 2628.6(a) on behalf of one
or more members of a filer's controlled group. If a person other than a
filer submits the information, the submission must also include a
written power of attorney signed by a filer authorizing the person to
act on behalf of one or more filers.
Sec. 2628.4 Filers.
(a) General. A contributing sponsor of a plan and each member of
the contributing sponsor's controlled group is a filer with respect to
an information year (unless exempted under paragraph (d) of this
section) if--
(1) the aggregate unfunded vested benefits of all plans (including
any exempt plans) maintained by the members of the contributing
sponsor's controlled group exceed $50 million (disregarding those plans
with no unfunded vested benefits);
(2) any member of a controlled group fails to make a required
installment or other required payment to a plan and, as a result, the
conditions for imposition of a lien described in section 302(f)(1) (A)
and (B) of the Act or section 412(n)(1) (A) and (B) of the Code have
been met during the information year, and the required installment or
other required payment is not made within ten days after its due date;
or
(3) any plan maintained by a member of a controlled group has been
granted one or more minimum funding waivers under section 303 of the
Act or section 412(d) of the Code totaling in excess of $1 million
that, as of the end of the plan year ending within the information
year, are still outstanding (determined in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section).
(b) Unfunded vested benefits.
(1) General. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, for purposes of the $50 million test in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, the value of a plan's unfunded vested benefits is
determined at the end of the plan year ending within the filer's
information year in accordance with section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii) of the
Act and Sec. 2610.23 of this chapter (without reference to the
exemptions and special rules under Sec. 2610.24).
(2) Optional assumptions. Prior to the first information year in
which the mortality assumptions prescribed under section
302(d)(7)(C)(ii)(II) of the Act apply to all of the plans maintained by
a controlled group, the value of unfunded vested benefits for a plan
may be determined by substituting for the respective assumptions used
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section (but not using the alternative
calculation method under Sec. 2610.23(c) of this chapter) all of the
following assumptions:
(i) an interest rate equal to 100% of the annual yield for 30-year
Treasury constant maturities (as reported in Federal Reserve
Statistical Release G.13 and H.15) for the last full calendar month in
the plan year;
(ii) the fair market value of the plan's assets; and
(iii) the mortality tables described in section 302(d)(7)(C)(ii)(I)
of the Act or section 412(l)(7)(C)(ii)(I) of the Code; provided that
for any plan year ending on or after the effective date of an amendment
to the mortality tables used to value benefits to be paid as annuities
in trusteed plans under part 2619 of this chapter, those amended
mortality tables.
(c) Outstanding waiver. Before the end of the statutory
amortization period, a minimum funding waiver for a plan is considered
outstanding unless--
(1) a credit balance exists in the funding standard account
(described in section 302(b) of the Act and section 412(b) of the Code)
that is no less than the outstanding balance of all waivers for the
plan;
(2) a waiver condition or contractual obligation requires that a
credit balance as described in paragraph (c)(1) continue to be
maintained as of the end of each plan year during the remainder of the
statutory amortization period for the waiver; and
(3) no portion of any credit balance described in paragraph (c)(1)
is used to make any required installment under section 302(e) of the
Act or section 412(m) of the Code for any plan year during the
remainder of the statutory amortization period.
(d) Exempt entities. A person is an exempt entity if the person--
(1) is not a contributing sponsor of a plan (other than an exempt
plan);
(2) has revenue for its fiscal year ending within the controlled
group's information year that is five percent or less of the controlled
group's revenue for the fiscal year(s) ending within the information
year;
(3) has annual operating income for the fiscal year ending within
the controlled group's information year that is no more than the
greater of--
(i) five percent of the controlled group's annual operating income
for the
[[Page 66057]]
fiscal year(s) ending within the information year, or
(ii) $5 million; and
(4) has net assets at the end of the fiscal year ending within the
controlled group's information year that is no more than the greater
of--
(i) five percent of the controlled group's net assets at the end of
the fiscal year(s) ending within the information year, or
(ii) $5 million.
Sec. 2628.5 Information year.
(a) Determinations based on information year. An information year
is used under this part to determine which persons are filers
(Sec. 2628.4), what information a filer must submit (Secs. 2628.6-
2628.9), whether a plan is an exempt plan (Sec. 2628.8(c)), and the due
date for submitting the information (Sec. 2628.10(a)).
(b) General. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a
person's information year shall be the fiscal year of the person. A
filer is not required to change its fiscal year or the plan year of a
plan, to report financial information for any accounting period other
than an existing fiscal year, or to report actuarial information for
any plan year other than an existing plan year.
(c) Controlled group members with different fiscal years.
(1) Use of calendar year. If members of a controlled group
(disregarding any exempt entity) report financial information on the
basis of different fiscal years, the information year shall be the
calendar year.
(2) Example. Filers A and B are members of the same controlled
group. Filer A has a July 1 fiscal year, and filer B has an October 1
fiscal year. The information year is the calendar year. Filer A's
financial information with respect to its fiscal year ending June 30,
1996, and filer B's financial information with respect to its fiscal
year ending September 30, 1996, must be submitted to the PBGC following
the end of the 1996 calendar year (the calendar year in which those
fiscal years end). If filer B were an exempt entity, the information
year would be filer A's July 1 fiscal year.
Sec. 2628.6 Information to be filed.
(a) General. A filer must submit the information specified in
Sec. 2628.7 (identifying information), Sec. 2628.8 (plan actuarial
information) and Sec. 2628.9 (financial information) of this part with
respect to each member of the filer's controlled group and each plan
maintained by any member of the controlled group.
(b) Additional information. By written notification, the PBGC may
require any filer to submit additional actuarial or financial
information that is necessary to determine plan assets and liabilities
for any period through the end of the filer's information year, or the
financial status of a filer for any period through the end of the
filer's information year. The information must be submitted within ten
days after the date of the written notification or by a different time
specified therein.
(c) Previous submissions. If any required information has been
previously submitted to the PBGC, a filer may incorporate this
information into the required submission by referring to the previous
submission.
Sec. 2628.7 Identifying information.
(a) Filers. Each filer is required to provide the following
identifying information with respect to each member of the controlled
group (excluding exempt entities)--
(1) the name, address, and telephone number of each member of the
controlled group and the legal relationships of each (for example,
parent, subsidiary); and
(2) the nine-digit Employer Identification Number (EIN) assigned by
the Internal Revenue Service to each member (or if there is no EIN for
a member, an explanation).
(b) Plans. Each filer is required to provide the following
identifying information with respect to each plan (including exempt
plans) maintained by any member of the controlled group (including
exempt entities)--
(1) the name of each plan;
(2) the EIN and the three-digit Plan Number (PN) assigned by the
contributing sponsor to each plan (or if there is no EIN or PN for a
plan, an explanation); and
(3) if the EIN or PN of a plan has changed since the beginning of
the filer's information year, the previous EIN or PN and an
explanation.
Sec. 2628.8 Plan actuarial information.
(a) Required information. For each plan (other than an exempt plan)
maintained by any member of the filer's controlled group, each filer is
required to provide the following actuarial information--
(1) the fair market value of the plan's assets;
(2) the value of the plan's benefit liabilities (determined in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section) at the end of the plan
year ending within the filer's information year;
(3) a copy of the actuarial valuation report for the plan year
ending within the filer's information year that contains or is
supplemented by the following information--
(i) each amortization base and related amortization charge or
credit to the funding standard account (as defined in section 302(b) of
the Act or section 412(b) of the Code) for that plan year (excluding
the amount considered contributed to the plan as described in section
302(b)(3)(A) of the Act or section 412(b)(3)(A) of the Code),
(ii) the itemized development of the additional funding charge
payable for that plan year pursuant to section 412(l) of the Code,
(iii) the minimum funding contribution and the maximum deductible
contribution for that plan year,
(iv) the actuarial assumptions and methods used for that plan year
for purposes of section 302(b) and (d) of the Act or section 412(b) and
(l) of the Code (and any change in those assumptions and methods since
the previous valuation and justifications for any change), and
(v) a summary of the principal eligibility and benefit provisions
on which the valuation of the plan was based (and any changes to those
provisions since the previous valuation), along with descriptions of
any benefits not included in the valuation, any significant events that
occurred during that plan year, and the plan's early retirement
factors; and
(4) a written certification by an enrolled actuary that, to the
best of his or her knowledge and belief, the actuarial information
submitted is true, correct, and complete and conforms to all applicable
laws and regulations, provided that this certification may be qualified
in writing, but only to the extent the qualification(s) are permitted
under 26 CFR Sec. 301.6059-1(d).
(b) Alternative compliance for plan actuarial information. If any
of the information specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section is not
available by the date specified in Sec. 2628.10(a), a filer may satisfy
the requirement to provide such information by--
(1) including a statement, with the material that is submitted to
the PBGC, that the filer will file the unavailable information by the
alternative due date specified in Sec. 2628.10(b) of this part, and
(2) filing such information (along with a certification by an
enrolled actuary under paragraph (a)(4) of this section) with the PBGC
by that alternative due date.
(c) Exempt plan. The actuarial information specified in this
section is not required with respect to a plan that, as of the end of
the plan year ending within the filer's information year, has fewer
than 500 participants or has
[[Page 66058]]
benefit liabilities (determined in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this section) equal to or less than the fair market value of the plan's
assets, provided that the plan--
(1) has received, on or within ten days after their due dates, all
required installments or other payments required to be made during the
information year under section 302 of the Act or section 412 of the
Code; and
(2) has no minimum funding waivers outstanding (as described in
Sec. 2628.4(c) of this part) as of the end of the plan year ending
within the information year.
(d) Determination of benefit liabilities. The value of a plan's
benefit liabilities (within the meaning of section 4001(a)(16) of the
Act) at the end of a plan year shall be determined using the plan
census data described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and the
actuarial assumptions and methods described in paragraph (d)(2) or,
where applicable, (d)(3) of this section.
(1) Census data.
(i) Census data period. Plan census data shall be determined (for
all plans for any information year) either as of the end of the plan
year or as of the beginning of the next plan year.
(ii) Projected census data. If actual plan census data is not
available, a plan may use a projection of plan census data from a date
within the plan year. The projection must be consistent with
projections used to measure pension obligations of the plan for
financial statement purposes and must give a result appropriate for the
end of the plan year for these obligations. For example, adjustments to
the projection process will be required where there has been a
significant event (such as a plan amendment or a plant shutdown) that
has not been reflected in the projection data.
(2) Actuarial assumptions and methods. The value of benefit
liabilities shall be determined using the assumptions and methods
applicable to the valuation of benefits to be paid as annuities in
trusteed plans terminating at the end of the plan year (as prescribed
in part 2619, subpart C, of this chapter).
(3) Special actuarial assumptions for exempt plan determination.
Solely for purposes of determining whether a plan is an exempt plan,
the value of benefit liabilities may be determined by substituting for
the retirement age assumptions in paragraph (d)(2) the retirement age
assumptions used by the plan for that plan year for purposes of section
302(d) of the Act or section 412(l) of the Code.
Sec. 2628.9 Financial information.
(a) General. Except as provided in this section, each filer is
required to provide the following financial information for each
controlled group member (other than an exempt entity)--
(1) audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending within
the information year (including balance sheets, income statements, cash
flow statements, and notes to the financial statements);
(2) if audited financial statements are not available by the date
specified in Sec. 2628.10(a), unaudited financial statements for the
fiscal year ending within the information year; or
(3) if neither audited nor unaudited financial statements are
available by the date specified in Sec. 2628.10(a), copies of federal
tax returns for the tax year ending within the information year.
(b) Consolidated financial statements. If the financial information
of a controlled group member is combined with the information of other
group members in consolidated financial statements, a filer may provide
the following financial information in lieu of the information required
in paragraph (a) of this section--
(1) the audited consolidated financial statements for the filer's
information year or, if the audited consolidated financial statements
are not available by the date specified in Sec. 2628.10(a), unaudited
consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ending within the
information year; and
(2) for each controlled group member included in the consolidated
financial statements that is a contributing sponsor of a plan (other
than an exempt plan), the contributing sponsor's revenues and operating
income for the information year, and net assets at the end of the
information year.
(c) Subsequent submissions. If unaudited financial statements are
submitted as provided in paragraph (a)(2) or (b)(1) of this section,
audited financial statements must thereafter be filed within 15 days
after they are prepared. If federal tax returns are submitted as
provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, audited and unaudited
financial statements must thereafter be filed within 15 days after they
are prepared.
(d) Submission of public information. If any of the financial
information required by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section is
publicly available, the filer, in lieu of submitting such information
to the PBGC, may include a statement with the other information that is
submitted to the PBGC indicating when such financial information was
made available to the public and where the PBGC may obtain it. For
example, if the controlled group member has filed audited financial
statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission, it need not
file the financial statements with PBGC but instead can identify the
SEC filing as part of its submission under this part.
(e) Inclusion of information about non-filers and exempt entities.
Consolidated financial statements provided pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)
of this section may include financial information of persons who are
not controlled group members (e.g., joint ventures) or are exempt
entities.
Sec. 2628.10 Due date and filing with the PBGC.
(a) Due date. Except as permitted under paragraph (b) of this
section, a filer shall file the information required under this part
with the PBGC on or before the 105th day after the close of the filer's
information year.
(b) Alternative due date. A filer that includes the statement
specified in Sec. 2628.8(b)(1) with its submission to the PBGC by the
date specified in paragraph (a) of this section must submit the
actuarial information specified in Sec. 2628.8(b)(2) within 15 days
after the deadline for filing the plan's annual report (Form 5500
series) for the plan year ending within the filer's information year
(see Sec. 2520.104a-5(a)(2) of this title).
(c) How to file. Requests and information may be delivered by mail,
by delivery service, by hand, or by any other method acceptable to the
PBGC, to: Corporate Finance and Negotiations Department, Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-
4026.
(d) Date when information filed. Information filed under this part
is considered filed--
(1) on the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover
in which the information is mailed, if--
(i) the postmark was made by the United States Postal Service; and
(ii) the document was mailed postage prepaid, properly addressed to
the PBGC; or
(2) if the conditions stated in paragraph (d)(1) of this section
are not met, on the date it is received by the PBGC. Information
received on a weekend or Federal holiday or after 5:00 p.m. on a
weekday is considered filed on the next regular business day.
(e) Computation of time. In computing any period of time under this
part, the day of the act or event from which the designated period of
time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so
computed shall be
[[Page 66059]]
included, unless it is a weekend or Federal holiday, in which event the
period runs until the end of the next day that is not a weekend or
Federal holiday.
Sec. 2628.11 Waivers and Extensions.
The PBGC may waive the requirement to submit information with
respect to one or more filers or plans or may extend the applicable due
date or dates specified in Sec. 2628.10 of this part. The PBGC will
exercise this discretion in appropriate cases where it finds convincing
evidence supporting a waiver or extension; any waiver or extension may
be subject to conditions. A request for a waiver or extension must be
filed in writing with the PBGC at the address provided in
Sec. 2628.10(c) no later than 15 days before the applicable date
specified in Sec. 2628.10 of this part, and must state the facts and
circumstances on which the request is based.
Sec. 2628.12 Confidentiality of information submitted.
In accordance with Sec. 2603.15(b) of this chapter and section
4010(c) of the Act, any information or documentary material that is not
publicly available and is submitted to the PBGC pursuant to this part
shall not be made public, except as may be relevant to any
administrative or judicial action or proceeding or for disclosures to
either body of Congress or to any duly authorized committee or
subcommittee of the Congress.
Sec. 2628.13 Penalties.
If all of the information required under this part is not provided
within the specified time limit, the PBGC may assess a separate penalty
under section 4071 of the Act against the filer and each member of the
filer's controlled group (other than an exempt entity) of up to $1,000
a day for each day that the failure continues. The PBGC may also pursue
other equitable or legal remedies available to it under the law.
Sec. 2628.14 OMB control number.
The collection of information requirements contained in this part
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB
Control Number 1212-0049.
Issued on the date set forth above pursuant to a resolution of
the Board of Directors authorizing its Chairman to issue this final
rule.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 18th day of December 1995.
Robert B. Reich,
Chairman, Board of Directors, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
James J. Keightley,
Secretary, Board of Directors, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 95-31053 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7708-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31014 Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Deception as to Non-Prismatic and Partially Prismatic Instruments Being Prismatic Binoculars
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65529-65530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31014]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 402
Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Deception as to Non-Prismatic
and Partially Prismatic Instruments Being Prismatic Binoculars
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Repeal of rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the repeal of the Trade
Regulation Rule concerning Deception as to Non-Prismatic and Partially
Prismatic Instruments Being
[[Page 65530]]
Prismatic Binoculars. The Commission has reviewed the rulemaking record
and determined that due to changes in technology, the Rule no longer
serves the public interest and should be repealed. This notice contains
a Statement of Basis and Purposes for repeal of the Rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Statement of Basis and Purpose
should be sent to Public Reference Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade
Commission, 6th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Phillip Priesman, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of
Consumer Protection, Division of Advertising Practices, Washington, DC
20580, telephone number (202) 326-2484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statement of Basis and Purpose
I. Background
The Trade Regulation Rule concerning Deception as to Non-Prismatic
and Partially Prismatic Instruments Being Prismatic Binoculars
(Binocular Rule), 16 CFR Part 402, was promulgated in 1964 (29 FR
7316). The Rule requires a clear and conspicuous disclosure on any
advertising or packaging for non-prismatic or partially prismatic
binoculars that the instruments are not fully prismatic. Fully
prismatic binoculars rely on a prism within the instrument to reverse
the visual image entering the lens so that it appears right-side up to
the user. Other binoculars rely partially or entirely on mirrors to
reverse the visual image. When the rule was promulgated, the Commission
was concerned that consumers could be misled into believing that non-
prismatic binoculars were in fact prismatic, absent such a disclosure.
To prevent consumer deception, the rule proscribed the use of the
term ``binocular'' to describe anything other than a fully prismatic
instrument, unless the term was modified to indicate the true nature of
the item. Under the Rule, non-prismatic instruments could be identified
as binoculars only if they incorporated a descriptive term such as
``binocular-nonprismatic,'' ``binocular-mirror prismatic,'' or
``binocular-nonprismatic mirror,''
On May 23, 1995, the Commission published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comment on proposed repeal of the
Binocular Rule (60 FR 27241). In accordance with Section 18 of the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the ANPR was sent to
the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
United States Senate, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade and Hazardous Materials, United States House of Representatives.
The comment period closed on June 22, 1995. The Commission received one
comment suggesting that there may be a continuing need for the Rule
because field glasses and opera glasses, both of which are non-
prismatic, are still advertised and sold today. The comment
acknowledged, however, that present-day binoculars are fully prismatic,
while the non-prismatic instruments are identified as either field
glasses or opera glasses rather than binoculars.
On September 18, 1995, the Commission published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) initiating a proceeding to consider whether
the Binocular Rule should be repealed or remain in effect (60 FR
48065).\1\ This rulemaking proceeding was undertaken as part of the
Commission's ongoing program of evaluating trade regulation rules and
industry guides to ascertain their effectiveness, impact, cost and
need. This proceeding also responded to President Clinton's National
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which, among other things, urges
agencies to eliminate obsolete or unnecessary regulations. In the NPR,
the Commission announced its determination, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, to
use expedited procedures in this proceeding.\2\ The comment period
closed on October 18, 1995. The Commission received no comments and no
requests to hold an informal hearing.
\1\ In accordance with Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a,
the Commission submitted the NPR to the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States Senate, and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous
Materials, United States House of Representatives, 30 days prior to
its publication.
\2\ These procedures included: publishing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; soliciting written comments on the Commission's proposal
to repeal the Rule; holding an informal hearing, if requested by
interested parties; receiving a final recommendation from Commission
staff; and announcing final Commission action in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Basis for Repeal of Rule
Since the Rule was promulgated, technological advances have reduced
the cost of prisms to the point that almost all binoculars sold today
are fully prismatic. Those that are not fully prismatic are marketed
and sold as field glasses or opera glasses rather than binoculars.
Thus, there does not appear to be any continuing need for the Rule.
Repeal of the Rule will also further the objective of reducing obsolete
government regulation.
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-11, requires an
analysis of the anticipated impact of the repeal of the Rule on small
businesses. The reasons for repeal of the Rule have been explained in
this Notice. Repeal of the Rule would appear to have little or no
effect on small businesses. Moreover, the Commission is not aware of
any existing federal laws or regulations that would conflict with
repeal of the Rule. For these reasons, the Commission certifies,
pursuant to Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Binocular Rule does not impose ``information collection
requirements'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. Although the Rule contains disclosure requirements, these
disclosures are not covered under the Act because the disclosure
language is mandatory and provided by the government. Repeal of the
Rule, however, would eliminate any burdens on the public imposed by
these disclosure requirements.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 402
Binoculars, Trade practices.
PART 402--[REMOVED]
The Commission, under authority of Section 18 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, amends chapter I of title 16 of the Code
of Federal Regulations by removing Part 402.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31014 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31013 Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the Failure to Disclose That Skin Irritation May Result from Washing or Handling Glass Fiber Curtains and Draperies and Glass Fiber Curtain and Drapery Fabrics
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65532-65533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31013]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 413
Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the Failure to Disclose That
Skin Irritation May Result from Washing or Handling Glass Fiber
Curtains and Draperies and Glass Fiber Curtain and Drapery Fabrics
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Repeal of rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the repeal of the Trade
Regulation Rule concerning the Failure to Disclose that Skin Irritation
May Result from Washing or Handling Glass Fiber Curtains and Draperies
and Glass Fiber Curtain and Drapery Fabrics. The Commission has
received the rulemaking record and determined that due to changes in
technology, the Rule no longer serves the public interest and should be
repealed. This notice contains a Statement of Basis and Purpose for
repeal of the Rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Statement of Basis and Purpose
should be sent to Public Reference Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade
Commission, 6th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, DC
20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Rodriguez or Janice Podoll
Frankle, Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement,
Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3147 or
(202) 326-3022.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: .
Statement of Basis and Purpose
I. Background
The Trade Regulation Rule concerning the Failure to Disclose that
Skin Irritation May Result from Washing or Handling Glass Fiber
Curtains and Draperies and Glass Fiber Curtain and Drapery Fabrics
(Fiberglass Curtain Rule), 16 CFR Part 413, was promulgated in 1967 (32
FR 11023). The Fiberglass Curtain Rule requires marketers of fiberglass
curtains or draperies and fiberglass curtain or drapery cloth to
disclose that skin irritation may result from handling fiberglass
curtains or curtain cloth and from contact with clothing or other
articles that have been washed (1) with such glass fiber products, or
(2) in a container previously used for washing such glass fiber
products unless the glass particles have been removed from the
container by cleaning.
On May 23, 1995, the Commission published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comment on proposed repeal of the
Fiberglass Curtain Rule (60 FR 27243). In accordance with Section 18 of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the ANPR was
sent to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Untied States Senate, and the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials, United States
House of Representatives. The comment period closed on June 22, 1995.
The Commission received no comments.
On September 18, 1995, the Commission published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) initiating a proceeding to consider whether
the Fiberglass Curtain Rule should be repealed or remain in effect (60
FR 48071).\1\ This rulemaking proceeding was undertaken as part of the
Commission's ongoing program of evaluating trade regulation rules and
industry guides to ascertain their effectiveness, impact, cost and
need. This proceeding also responded to President Clinton's National
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which, among other things, urges
agencies to eliminate obsolete or unnecessary regulations. In the NPR,
the Commission announced its determination, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, to
use expedited procedures in this proceeding.\2\ The comment period
closed on October 18, 1995. The Commission received no comments and no
requests to hold an informal hearing.
\1\ In accordance with Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a,
the Commission submitted the NPR to the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States Senate, and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous
Materials, United States House of Representatives, 30 days prior to
its publication.
\2\ These procedures included: publishing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; soliciting written comments on the Commission's proposal
to repeal the Rule; holding an informal hearing, if requested by
interested parties; receiving a final recommendation from Commission
staff; and announcing final Commission action in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Basis for Repeal of Rule
The Statement of Basis and Purpose for the Fiberglass Curtain Rule
stated that consumers had experienced skin irritation after washing or
handling glass fiber curtains and draperies and glass fiber curtain and
drapery fabrics. Consequently,the Commission concluded that it was in
the public interest to caution consumers that skin irritation could
result from the direct handling of fiberglass curtains, draperies, and
yard goods, and from body contact with clothing or other articles that
had been washed with fiberglass products or in a container previously
used to wash fiberglass products and not cleaned of all glass
practicles.
As part of its continuing review of its trade regulation rules to
determine their current effectiveness and impact, the Commission
recently obtained information bearing on the need for this Rule. Based
on this review, the Commission has determined that fiberglass curtains
and draperies and fiberglass curtain or drapery fabric no longer
present a substantial threat of skin irritation to the consumer.
Fiberglass was used in curtains primarily because of its fire retardant
characteristic. Technological developments in fire retardant fabrics
have caused fiberglass fabric to be displaced by polyester and
modacrylics in the curtain and drapery industry.\3\ Fiberglass fabrics
are now used almost exclusively for very specialized industrial
uses.\4\ Because the products are no longer sold for consumer use, the
Fiberglass Curtain Rule has become obsolete and should be repealed.
\3\ See Rulemaking Record, Category B, Staff Submissions.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-11 requires an
analysis of the anticipated impact of the repeal of the Rule on
businesses. The reasons for repeal of the Rule have been explained in
this Notice. Repeal of the Rule would appear to have little or no
effect on small businesses. Moreover, the
[[Page 65533]]
Commission is not aware of any existing federal laws or regulations
that would conflict with repeal of the Rule. For these reasons, the
Commission certifies, pursuant to Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605,
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Fiberglass Curtain Rule does not impose ``information
collection requirements'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Although the Rule contains disclosure requirements, these
disclosures are not covered by the Act because the disclosure language
is mandatory and provided by the government. Repeal of the Rule,
however, would eliminate any burdens on the public imposed by these
disclosure requirements.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 413
Fiberglass curtains and curtain fabric, Trade practices.
PART 413--[REMOVED]
The Commission, under authority of Section 18 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, amends chapter I of title 16 of the Code
of Federal Regulations by removing Part 413.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31013 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31012 Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Deceptive Advertising and Labeling as to Size of Tablecloths and Related Products
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65530-65532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31012]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 404
Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Deceptive Advertising and
Labeling as to Size of Tablecloths and Related Products
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Repeal of rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the repeal of the Trade
Regulation Rule concerning Deceptive Advertising and Labeling as to
Size of Tablecloths and Related
[[Page 65531]]
Products. The Commission has reviewed the rulemaking record and
determined that due to changes in industry practices and state laws,
the Rule no longer serves the public interest and should be repealed.
This notice contains a Statement of Basis and Purpose for repeal of the
Rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Statement of Basis and Purpose
should be sent to Public Reference Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade
Commission, 6th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, DC
20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janice Podoll Frankle, Esq., (202) 326-3022, Division of Enforcement,
Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC
20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statement of Basis and Purpose
I. Background
The Trade Regulation Rule concerning Deceptive Advertising and
Labeling as to Size of Tablecloths and Related Products (Tablecloth
Rule), 16 CFR Part 404, was promulgated in 1964 (29 FR 11261). The
Tablecloth Rule declares that in connection with the sale or offering
for sale of tablecloths and related products, such as doilies, table
mats, dresser scarves, place mats, table runners, napkins and tea sets,
any representation of the cut size (that is, the dimensions of
unfinished materials used in the construction of such products)
constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive
act or practice unless.
(a) ``Such `cut size' dimensions are accompanied by the words `cut-
size' ''; and
(b) ``The `cut size' is accompanied by a clear and conspicuous
disclosure of the dimensions of the finished products and by an
explanation that such dimensions constitute the finished size.''
On May 23, 1995, the Commission published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comment on proposed repeal of the
Tablecloth Rule (60 FR 27242). In accordance with section 18 of the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the ANPR was sent to
the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
United States Senate, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade and Hazardous Materials, United States House of Representatives.
The comment period closed on June 22, 1995. The Commission received no
comments.
On September 18, 1995, the Commission published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) initiating a proceeding to consider whether
the Tablecloth Rule should be repealed or remain in effect (60 FR
48067).\1\ This rulemaking proceeding was undertaken as part of the
Commission's ongoing program of evaluating trade regulation rules and
industry guides to ascertain their effectiveness, impact, cost and
need. This proceeding also responded to President Clinton's National
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which, among other things, urges
agencies to eliminate obsolete or unnecessary regulations. In the NPR,
the Commission announced its determination, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, to
sue expedited procedures in this proceeding.\2\ The comment period
closed on October 18, 1995. The Commission received no comments and no
requests to hold an informal hearing.
\1\ In accordance with section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a,
the Commission submitted the NPR to the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States Senate, and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous
Materials, United States House of Representatives, 30 days prior to
its publication.
\2\ These procedures included; publishing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; soliciting written comments on the Commission's proposal
to repeal the Rule; holding an informal hearing, if requested by
interested parties; receiving a final recommendation from Commission
staff; and announcing final Commission action in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Basis for Repeal of Rule
The Commission periodically reviews its rules and guides, seeking
information about their costs and benefits and their regulatory and
economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in
identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission.
On April 19, 1993, the Commission published in the Federal Register a
request for public comments on the Tablecloth Rule, 58 FR 21124. The
Commission asked commenters to address the costs and benefits of the
Rule, the burdens it imposes, and the basis for assessing whether it
should be retained or amended.
The Commission received only one comment specifically addressing
this Rule along with a general comment referring to several rules under
review. The comment specific to this Rule was submitted by a trade
group representing the textile rental, linen supply, uniform rental,
dust control and commercial laundry services industries. In its one-
page comment letter, the association stated there is a continuing need
for this Rule. The commenter asserted that the Rule does not impose any
additional costs or burdens on entities subject to the Rule and that
the rule raises the level of professionalism in the industry.
In addition, one general comment, applicable to several rules being
reviewed, was received from an advertising agency association. This
organization recommended rescission of the Tablecloth Rule because the
general prohibitions covering false and deceptive advertising apply to
the industry. Thus, the commenter concluded that the Rule creates
unnecessary administrative costs for the government, industry members
or consumers.
Prior to the 1993 request for comments, Commission staff conducted
an informal review of industry practices by examining the marking of
dimensions on tablecloths and other items subject to the Rule available
for retail sale at several national chain stores. This informal review
revealed no instances of Rule violations. In fact, it appeared from the
limited review that industry products were marked with only the
finished size. Additionally, the Commission has no record of receiving
any complaints regarding non-compliance with the Rule, or of initiating
any law enforcement actions alleging violations of the Rule's
requirements. Finally, the National Conference on Weight and Measures'
Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, which has been adopted by 47
states, regulates the labeling of tablecloths, and provides that these
items must be labeled with their finished size.
Because the practices that brought about the Tablecloth Rule are no
longer common industry practices and are otherwise addressed by state
law, the Rule is no longer necessary and should be repealed.
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-11, requires an
analysis of the anticipated impact of the repeal of the Rule on small
businesses. The reasons for repeal of the Rule have been explained in
this Notice. Repeal of the Rule would appear to have little or no
effect on small businesses. Moreover, the Commission is not aware of
any existing federal laws or regulations that would conflict with
repeal of the Rule. For these reasons, the Commission certifies,
pursuant to Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Tablecloth Rule imposes third-party disclosure requirements
that
[[Page 65532]]
constitute ``information collection requirements'' under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Accordingly, repeal of the Rule
would eliminate any burdens on the public imposed by these disclosure
requirements.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 404
Advertising, Tablecloths and related products, Trade practices.
PART 404--[REMOVED]
The Commission, under authority of Section 18 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, amends chapter I of title 16 of the Code
of Federal Regulations by removing Part 404.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31012 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31011 Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Deceptive Advertising and Labeling as to Length of Extension Ladders
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65533-65534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31011]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 418
Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Deceptive Advertising and
Labeling as to Length of Extension Ladders
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Repeal of rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the repeal of the Trade
Regulation Rule concerning Deceptive Advertising and Labeling as to
Length of Extension Ladders. The Commission has reviewed the rulemaking
record and determined that due to changes in industry practice, and the
existence of standards mandating the point-of-sale disclosures required
by the Rule, the Rule no longer serves the public interest and should
be repealed. This notice contains a Statement of Basis and Purpose for
repeal of the Rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Statement of Basis and Purpose
should be sent to Public Reference Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade
Commission, 6th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, DC
20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Blickman, Attorney, Federal Trade
Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Enforcement,
Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3038.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statement of Basis and Purpose
I. Background
The Trade Regulation Rule concerning Deceptive Advertising and
labeling as to Length of Extension Ladders (Extension Ladder Rule), 16
CFR Part 418, was promulgated in 1969 (34 FR 929). The Extension Ladder
Rule declares that it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice and an
unfair method of competition to represent the size or length of an
extension ladder in terms of the total length of the component sections
thereof unless:
(a) Such size or length representation is accompanied by the words
``total length of sections'' or words with similar meaning that clearly
indicate the basis of the representation; and,
(b) Such size or length representation is accompanied by a
statement in close proximity that clearly and conspicuously shows the
maximum length of the product when fully extended for use (i.e.,
excluding the footage lost in overlapping) along with an explanation of
the basis for such representation.\1\
\1\ The Rule then gives an example of proper length
representation when the product consists of two ten foot sections:
``maximum working length 17', total length of sections 20''' or
``17' extension ladder''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 1995, the Commission published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comment on proposed repeal of the
Extension Ladder Rule (60 FR 27245). In accordance with Section 18 of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the ANPR was
sent to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, United States Senate, and the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials, United States
House of Representatives. The comment period closed on June 22, 1995.
The Commission received no comments.
On September 18, 1995, the Commission published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) initiating a proceeding to consider whether
the Extension Ladder Rule should be repealed or remain in effect (60 FR
48075).\2\ This rulemaking proceeding was undertaken as part of the
Commission's ongoing program of evaluating trade regulation rules and
industry guides to ascertain their effectiveness, impact, cost and
need. This proceeding also responded to President Clinton's National
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which, among other things, urges
agencies to eliminate obsolete or unnecessary regulations. In the NPR,
the Commission announced its determination, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20,
the use expedited procedures in this proceeding.\3\
\2\ In accordance with Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a,
the Commission submitted the NPR to the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States Senate, and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous
Materials, United States House of Representatives, 30 days prior to
its publication.
\3\ These procedures included: publishing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, soliciting written comments on the Commission's proposal
to repeal the Rule; holding an informal hearing, if requested by
interested parties; receiving a final recommendation from Commission
staff; and announcing final Commission action in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment period closed on October 18, 1995. The Commission
received no comments and no requests to hold an informal hearing.
II. Basis for Repeal of Rule
The Commission periodically reviews its rules and guides, seeking
information about their costs and benefits and their regulatory and
economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in
identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission.
Accordingly, on April 19, 1993, the Commission published in the Federal
Register a request for public comments on its Extension Ladder Rule (58
FR 21125). The Commission asked commenters to address questions
relating to the costs and benefits of the Rule, the burdens it imposes,
and the basis for assessing whether it should be retained, or amended.
Six specific comments were received. One commenter, a consumer,
opined that the only label that should be on ladders is the ``maximum
working length'' because consumers should not have to do any figuring
to determine the length of the ladder that would meet their needs.
Of the other five commenters, four were manufacturers or suppliers
of ladders and one was a trade association. A number of these comments
referred to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard
A14, which governs the labeling of ladders. ANSI standard A14 details
the requirements for labeling portable wood ladders, portable metals
ladders, fixed ladders, job made ladders, and portable
[[Page 65534]]
reinforced plastic ladders. The ANSI standard requires specification of
the maximum working length of an extension ladder, as well as several
other pieces of information not required by the Extension Ladder Rule,
including the total length of the ladder's sections and the highest
standing level of the ladder. Compliance with the ANSI standard,
therefore, ensures compliance with the labeling requirements of the
Extension Ladder Rule. Several commenters noted this overlap in
coverage of the Extension Ladder Rule and ANSI standard A14, and
recommended that the Rule be retained unchanged.
Another commenter stated that the Rule has imposed minor,
incremental costs, but opined that the benefits have been significant
in that consumers have a better understanding of extension ladder
length. The commenter questioned whether there was a continuing need
for this Rule given the existence of ANSI standard A14 and UL standard
184, which the commenter stated also requires extension ladders to be
marked to indicate both the total length of sections and the maximum
extended length or maximum working length.
In addition to these specific comments, one general comment,
applicable to several Commission Rules being reviewed, was received
from an advertising agency association. This organization recommended
rescission of the Extension Ladder Rule because the general
prohibitions of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act covering
false and deceptive advertising apply to the ladder industry. Thus, the
commenter concluded that the Rule creates unnecessary administrative
costs for the government, industry members and consumers.
Commission staff also engaged in an informal review of industry
practices by examining the marking of length on extension ladders
available for retail sale at several chain stores. That review
indicated general compliance with the requirements of the Rule.
Additionally, a check of Commission records failed to find any
complaints regarding non-compliance with the Rule, or any initiation of
law enforcement actions alleging violations of the Rule's requirements.
Accordingly, the Commission has reviewed the rulemaking record and
determined to repeal the Extension Ladder Rule due to changes in
industry practice, and the existence of industry standards mandating
the point-of-sale disclosures required by the Rule.
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-11, requires an
analysis of the anticipated impact of the repeal of the Rule on small
businesses. The reasons for repeal of the Rule have been explained in
this Notice. Repeal of the Rule would appear to have little or no
effect on small businesses. Moreover, the Commission is not aware of
any existing federal laws or regulations that would conflict with
repeal of the Rule. For these reasons, the Commission certifies,
pursuant to Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Extension Ladder Rule imposes third-party disclosure
requirements that constitute ``information collection requirements''
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Accordingly,
repeal of the Rule would eliminate any burdens on the public imposed by
these disclosure requirements.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 418
Advertisting, Extension ladders, Trade practices.
PART 418--[REMOVED]
The Commission, under authority of Section 18 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, amends chapter I of title 16 of the Code
of Federal Regulations by removing Part 418.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
FR Doc. 95-31011 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31010 Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Advertising and Labeling as to Size of Sleeping Bags
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65528-65529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31010]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 400
Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Advertising and Labeling as to
Size of Sleeping Bags
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Repeal of rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the repeal of the Trade
Regulation Rule concerning Advertising and Labeling as to Size of
Sleeping Bags. The Commission has reviewed the rulemaking record and
determined that due to changes in industry practice, and the existence
of laws in most states that mandate point-of-sale disclosures similar
to those required by the Rule, the Rule no longer serves the public
interest and should be repealed. This notice contains a State of Basis
and Purpose for repeal of the Rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the State of Basis and Purpose should
be sent to Public Reference Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission,
6th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Neil Blickman, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer
Protection, Division of Enforcement, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-
3038.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
State of Basis and Purpose
I. Background
The Trade Regulation Rule concerning Advertising and Labeling as to
Size of Sleeping Bags (Sleeping Bag Rule), 16 CFR Part 400, was
promulgated in 1963 (28 FR 10900). The Sleeping Bag Rule regulates the
advertising, labeling and marking of the dimensions of sleeping bags.
The Commission had found that the practice of labeling sleeping bags by
the dimensions of the unfinished material used in their construction
(cut size) was misleading consumers about the actual size of the
sleeping bag. To correct this misconception, the Commission promulgated
the Sleeping Bag Rule, which provides that it is an unfair method of
competition and an unfair or deceptive act or practice to use the ``cut
[[Page 65529]]
size'' of the materials from which a sleeping bag is made to describe
the size of a sleeping bag in advertising, labeling or marking unless:
(1) ``The dimensions of the cut size are accurate measurements of
the yard goods used in construction of the sleeping bags''; and
(2) ``Such `cut size' dimensions are accompanied by the words `cut
size' ''; and
(3) The reference to ``cut size'' is ``accompanied by a clear and
conspicuous disclosure of the length and width of the finished products
and by an explanation that such dimensions constitute the finished
size''.\1\
\1\ The Rule then gives an example of proper size marking:
``Finished size 33'' x 68''; cut size 36'' x 72''.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 1995, the Commission published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comment on proposed repeal of the
Sleeping Bag Rule (60 FR 27240). In accordance with Section 18 of the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the ANPR was sent to
the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
United States Senate, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade and Hazardous Materials, United States House of Representatives.
The comment period closed on June 22, 1995. The Commission received no
comments.
On September 18, 1995, the Commission published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) initiating a proceeding to consider whether
the Sleeping Bag Rule should be repealed or remain in effect (60 FR
48063).\2\ This rulemaking proceeding was undertaken as part of the
Commission's ongoing program of evaluating trade regulation rules and
industry guides to ascertain their effectiveness, impact, cost and
need. This proceeding also responded to President Clinton's National
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which, among other things, urges
agencies to eliminate obsolete or unnecessary regulations. In the NPR,
the Commission announced its determination, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, to
use expedited procedures in this proceeding.\3\ The comment period
closed on October 18, 1995. The Commission received no comments and no
requests to hold an informal hearing.
\2\ In accordance with Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a,
the Commission submitted the NPR to the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States Senate, and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous
Materials, United States House of Representatives, 30 days prior to
its publication.
\3\ These procedures included: publishing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; soliciting written comments on the Commission's proposal
to repeal the Rule; holding an informal hearing, if requested by
interested parties, receiving a final recommendation from Commission
staff; and announcing final Commission action in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Basis for Repeal of Rule
The Commission periodically reviews its rules and guides, seeking
information about their costs and benefits and their regulatory and
economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in
identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission.
Accordingly, on April 19, 1993, the Commission published in the Federal
Register a request for public comments on its Sleeping Bag Rule (58 FR
21095). The Commission asked commenters to address the costs and
benefits of the Rule, whether there was a continuing need for this
regulation, the burdens placed on businesses subject to this
regulation, whether changes should be made, any conflicts with other
laws, and whether changes in technology affected the Rule.
Only one specific comment relating to the Sleeping Bag Rule was
received, which generally supported a continuation of this regulation.
In addition to this specific comment, one general comment, applicable
to several rules being reviewed, was received from an advertising
agency association. This organization recommended rescission of the
Sleeping Bag Rule because the general prohibitions of the FTC Act
covering false and deceptive advertising apply to the sleeping bag
industry. Thus, the commenter concluded that the Rule creates
unnecessary administrative costs for the government, industry members
and consumers.
Commission staff also conducted an informal inquiry and inspected
sleeping bags at several national chain stores. This inquiry found no
violations of the Rule on either the sleeping bag packaging materials
or the labels affixed to the products themselves. In fact, it appeared
from that limited inquiry that industry products were marked with only
the finished size. Additionally, the Commission has no record of
receiving any complaints regarding non-compliance with the Rule, or of
initiating any law enforcement actions alleging violation of the Rule's
requirements. Finally, the National Conference on Weights and Measures'
Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, which has been adopted by 47
States, regulates the labeling of sleeping bags, and provides that
these items must be labeled with their finished size. Accordingly, due
to changes in industry practice, and the existence of laws in most
States that mandate point-of-sale disclosures similar to those required
by the Rule, the Commission has determined to repeal the Sleeping Bag
Rule.
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-11, requires an
analysis of the anticipated impact of the repeal of the Rule on small
businesses. The reasons for repeal of the Rule have been explained in
this Notice. Repeal of the Rule would appear to have little or no
effect on small businesses. Moreover, the Commission is not aware of
any existing Federal laws or regulations that would conflict with
repeal of the Rule. For these reasons, the Commission certifies,
pursuant to section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Sleeping Bag Rule imposes third-party disclosure requirements
that constitute ``information collection requirements'' under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Accordingly, repeal of
the Rule would eliminate any burdens on the public imposed by these
disclosure requirements.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 400
Advertising, Sleeping bags, Trade practices.
PART 400--[REMOVED]
The Commission, under authority of section 18 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, amends chapter I of title 16 of the Code
of Federal Regulations by removing part 400.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31010 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30986 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modification of Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline RegulationsTreatment of Business Information Submitted Concerning Individual Baselines
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65571-65575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30986]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[AMS-FRL-5399-9]
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modification of
Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline Regulations--Treatment of
Business Information Submitted Concerning Individual Baselines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) promulgated
anti-dumping regulations for conventional gasoline (gasoline not
certified as reformulated gasoline (RFG)). These regulations require
that conventional gasoline not be more polluting than it was in 1990
and include provisions for the development of individual refinery
baselines and other compliance provisions. Today's action modifies the
regulations concerning the publication and confidentiality of
individual baselines and information submitted to obtain an individual
baseline.
DATES: This final rule is effective December 12, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this final rule can be found in Public
Docket A-95-03; materials relevant to the reformulated gasoline final
rule are contained in Public Dockets A-91-02 and A-92-12. These dockets
are located at Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460. The docket may be inspected from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying
docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine M. Brunner, U.S. EPA, Fuels
and Energy Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
Telephone: (313) 668-4287. To Request Copies of This Document Contact:
Delores Frank, U.S. EPA, Fuels and Energy Division, 2565 Plymouth Road,
Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (313) 668-4295.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents Through the Technology
Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS)
A copy of this final rule is available electronically on the EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology
Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTNBBS). The service is free of
charge, except for the cost of the phone call. The TTNBBS can be
accessed with a dial-in phone line and a high-speed modem per the
following information:
TTN BBS: 919-541-5742
(1200-14400 bps, no parity, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit)
Voice Help-line: 919-541-5384
Accessible via Internet: TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov
Off-line: Mondays from 8 AM to 12 Noon ET
A user who has not called TTN previously will first be required to
answer some basic informational questions for registration purposes.
After completing the registration process, proceed through the
following menu choices from the Top Menu to access information on this
rulemaking.
GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL AREAS (Bulletin Boards)
OMS--Mobile Sources Information
Rulemaking and Reporting
<3> Fuels
<9> File Area #9 * * * Reformulated gasoline
[[Page 65572]]
At this point, the system will list all available files in the
chosen category in reverse chronological order with brief descriptions.
These files are compressed (i.e., ZIPed). Today's notice can be
identified by the following title: CBI-FRM.ZIP. To download this file,
type the instructions below and transfer according to the appropriate
software on your computer:
ownload, rotocol, xamine, ew, ist, or elp Selection
or to exit: D filename.zip
You will be given a list of transfer protocols from which you must
choose one that matches with the terminal software on your own
computer. The software should then be opened and directed to receive
the file using the same protocol. Programs and instructions for de-
archiving compressed files can be found via ystems Utilities from
the top menu, under rchivers/de-archivers. After getting the files
you want onto your computer, you can quit the TTNBBS with the oodbye
command. Please note that due to differences between the software used
to develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.
II. Confidentiality of Information Submitted for Individual
Baselines
A. Introduction
Compliance with certain aspects of the reformulated and
conventional gasoline regulations depends on the individual baseline of
the refiner or importer.\1\ The final regulations issued by EPA in
December 1993 establish requirements for developing an individual
baseline which is the set of fuel parameter values, emissions and
volumes which represent the quality and quantity of the refiner's 1990
gasoline. See 40 CFR 80.91. The final rule also states that certain
information contained in a refiner's baseline submittal would not be
considered confidential, and that EPA would publish the individual
standards for each refinery, blender or importer upon approval of an
individual baseline. See 40 CFR 80.93(b)(6).
\1\ In general, the provisions regarding individual baselines
apply to refiners or importers of conventional gasoline. For brevity
in this discussion, the term ``refiner'' shall include both refiners
and importers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons affected by this provision sought judicial review,
objecting to the release or publication of this information on grounds
of business confidentiality. American Petroleum Institute v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 94-1138 (D.C. Cir.), and
consolidated case Texaco, Inc. and Star Enterprises v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 94-1143 (D.C. Cir.). Based on
discussions with these parties, EPA reconsidered this provision and
proposed to revise it.\2\ 60 FR 40009, August 4, 1995. Under the
proposal, EPA would publish only a portion of the baseline information,
representing a refinery's baseline emissions values. Instead of
determining by regulation that the remaining baseline information
submitted by a refiner is non-confidential, EPA would address claims of
business confidentiality for this other baseline information under
EPA's regulations on ``Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI),''
40 CFR part 2 subpart B.
\2\ For a discussion of industry concerns regarding this issue
and EPA's rationale behind its proposal, see the support document
``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Standards for Reformulated
and Conventional Gasoline--Detailed Discussion and Analysis'', Air
Docket A-95-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This preamble provides background information on individual
baselines and their use, discusses the proposal, and summarizes and
responds to the comments received on the proposal. The revisions
contained in the August 4, 1995 proposal are finalized as proposed.
Refiners may submit to EPA claims of confidentiality on baseline
information originally deemed not confidential by the December 1993
rule but for which claims of confidentiality would now be considered
under EPA's CBI regulations pursuant to this rulemaking. These claims
may be sent to Deborah Adler, U.S. EPA, Fuels and Energy Division, 2565
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (313) 668-4223.
B. Background
A refiner's individual baseline reflects the volume and average
quality of its gasoline for the year 1990. Unlike the standards for
reformulated gasoline (which for the most part are the same for all
refiners), the standards for conventional gasoline (the anti-dumping
standards) are generally expressed in terms of this individual
baseline, so that compliance with the standards is measured by
comparing current production of conventional gasoline against the
individual baseline, on an annual basis. For example, for conventional
gasoline under the simple model, a refiner's annual average value for
exhaust benzene emissions may not exceed its compliance baseline value
for exhaust benzene emissions, and its annual average values for
sulfur, olefins and T90 may not exceed 125 percent of its compliance
baseline values for these parameters. 40 CFR 80.101(b)(1). In most
cases, the compliance baseline is the same as the individual baseline.
40 CFR 80.101(f). For reformulated gasoline, certain standards
applicable during 1995 through 1997 are also expressed in terms of a
refiner's or importer's individual baseline. 40 CFR 80.41(h)(2).
EPA assigns an individual baseline after reviewing a refiner's
baseline submittal. The submittal includes the refiner's estimate of
its baseline values for the various required fuel parameters; exhaust
emissions values calculated from such parameters; 1990 gasoline
volumes; and the blendstock-to-gasoline ratios for 1990 through 1993.
Per the December 1993 final rule, this information would not be
considered confidential, and EPA would publish, for each refinery or
importer, certain baseline exhaust emissions and the sulfur, olefins
and T90 standards noted above. 40 CFR 80.93(b)(6).
C. Proposal
In the preamble to the December 1993 regulations, EPA stated that
it believed that each refiner's anti-dumping standard should be
publicly known. The standards for reformulated gasoline are publicly
known, but are generally the same for all refiners. EPA cited several
benefits of publishing a refiner's anti-dumping standards (i.e.,
specific individual baseline information). These included citizen suit
enforcement, more information to the public about EPA's standards, and
better deterrence to noncompliance.
However, as stated above, objections raised by certain parties
regarding publication of baseline information caused EPA to reconsider
which information should be published and which information might more
appropriately be handled under EPA's CBI regulations. Because EPA was
particularly concerned that the emissions standards for refiners
continue to be public,\3\ it did not propose to change the regulations
regarding publication of the individual baseline exhaust emissions
values that comprise a refiner's anti-dumping standards. However, EPA
did propose that the standards for sulfur, olefins and T90 applicable
during 1995 through 1997 not be published and instead that the
reporting requirements be revised such that a refiner would have to
note whether and how much its annual average for these values exceeded
their individual baseline value. This latter
[[Page 65573]]
reporting information would be considered non-confidential. EPA stated
that this would effectively provide the same benefits as publishing the
baseline values for these three parameters as it would clearly show
whether and how much a refiner violated the standards applicable for
these fuel parameters while preserving valid claims of business
confidentiality.
\3\ The Act specifies that conventional gasoline emissions
cannot be greater than they were in 1990. The simple model
requirements for sulfur, olefins and T90 were a result of the
Regulatory Negotiation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's proposal to change the regulations regarding business
confidentiality was based in large part on evidence, presented by
interested parties in the oil refining industry, arguing that detailed
information regarding the quality of a business' 1990 gasoline
production would allow a competitor to calculate the business' current
cost of producing reformulated gasoline much more accurately with this
baseline information. This increased ability to predict current cost of
production would lead to significant adverse competitive harm.
According to the interested parties, information on individual baseline
fuel parameters (i.e., sulfur, olefins and T90) would have much more
adverse competitive impact than information on individual baseline
exhaust emission values.
In the proposal, EPA also stated that requests for release of other
baseline information would be governed by the regulations on the
confidentiality of business information at 40 CFR part 2 subpart B. By
deferring to 40 CFR part 2 subpart B, the factual and legal issues
concerning disclosure of this information may be resolved on a case-by-
case basis under EPA's CBI rules.
D. Summary and Analysis of Comments
EPA received less than ten comments on this issue; most generally
supported the proposal. Commenters agreed with EPA that the proposal
would properly inform the public of each refiner's standards yet would
minimize competitive harm and would protect each refiner's competitive
business interests. Commenters also mentioned that foregoing
publication of some baseline information does not hinder EPA's ability
to enforce the RFG (or anti-dumping) programs. One commenter stated
that no negative environmental effects would occur due to the proposed
change. EPA agrees with all of these comments.
Commenters also mentioned that indiscriminate publication of
baseline data would be contrary to the Agency's stated rationale for
establishing the procedures set forth in the CBI regulations. While EPA
believes the December 1993 final rule provisions were consistent with
the rationale of the Agency's CBI regulations, EPA believes that the
changes adopted today are a more appropriate mechanism to implement
this rationale. The December 1993 rule was based on the view that all
information submitted by a refiner regarding its individual baseline
should be considered non-confidential emissions data, and therefore
would not be protected from release notwithstanding its claimed
confidential nature. See CAA section 114, 208. In the rule adopted
today, EPA basically limits this determination to the information that
will be published--individual baseline exhaust emission levels. The
reporting information that is considered non-confidential does not meet
the definition of confidential business information, without addressing
whether it is emissions data. The confidentiality of the remaining
baseline information will be addressed under EPA's CBI regulations.
Instead of pre-determining whether this remaining information is
confidential business information or whether it is emissions data,
these issues will be resolved as needed on a case-by-case basis under
EPA's CBI regulations. This will allow for a case specific inquiry,
focusing on any unique aspects that might be specific to a refiner and
thereby reducing the risk of improper disclosure. Having reconsidered
these issues, especially the competitive harm that could occur if a
refiner's entire baseline information were available for release, EPA
believes that the alternative contained in the August 1995 proposal and
finalized today will retain the benefits of publishing all of a
refiner's individual baseline exhaust emission levels while minimizing
competitive harm. One commenter stated that with the proposal the
regulations now conformed to the CBI rules.
Another commenter stated that the Act exempts only emission data
from CBI rules and that the baseline information is not emission data.
EPA disagrees with this comment with respect to the individual baseline
exhaust emissions levels. With respect to the remaining individual
baseline information, the issue of whether it is or is not emissions
data is not resolved by this rulemaking, but will be resolved as needed
under EPA's CBI regulations.
Several commenters expressed concern about the ability to claim
confidentiality now on baseline information not originally marked
confidential. For example, under the December 1993 rule baseline values
for sulfur, olefins and T90 were not considered confidential, and many
baseline submitters may therefore not have claimed that information as
confidential. If not allowed to claim confidentiality now, someone
could arguably request and receive that information from EPA. However,
baseline submitters can, and in fact are encouraged to now submit
claims of confidentiality on baseline information that the submitter
considers confidential, even though not originally marked confidential.
EPA's CBI regulations do not prohibit a company from notifying EPA that
it now claims certain previously submitted information as business
confidential. See 40 CFR 2.203, 2.204(c). This also addresses the
suggestion by one commenter that EPA take precautions in releasing
other baseline information. Once a company makes such a claim, EPA's
regulations generally call for notifying the company and giving it an
opportunity to justify the claim of confidentiality prior to any
release of the information to the public.
One commenter was concerned about the public perception of any
published information, citing potential pressure (presumably to be
cleaner than one's standard) from competitors and non-informed public
and the resulting impact on investor support. The commenter implied
that this kind of pressure can be especially burdensome if performance
margins are tight. This same commenter was particularly concerned about
small refiners and stated that big refiners are protected by (the
ability to) aggregate baselines. While multi-refinery refiners do have
the option to aggregate baselines for compliance purposes, publication
of baseline information is on a refinery basis, and multi-refinery
refiners have no advantage over single-refinery refiners in that
regard. This commenter also implicitly suggested that EPA consider
relaxing the publication requirements for small refiners since EPA has
determined that the contribution to emissions of small refiners is
minimal to the point of relaxing some requirements. However, the issue
of when and under what conditions to allow for baseline adjustments is
a separate issue. Whether or not a refiner meets such criteria, EPA
believes there is a continuing value in publishing the applicable
standards, including standards based on baseline adjustments. This
value, described above, occurs whether the business is small or large.
There is also no indication that the business pressures noted by this
commenter are greater for small businesses.
E. Final Rule
EPA today finalizes the provisions regarding the confidentiality of
information submitted for individual
[[Page 65574]]
baselines and the publication of certain baseline information as
proposed in the August 4, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 40009). The
applicable regulations have been modified slightly from the proposal.
Specifically, in Sec. 80.75, the proposed additional paragraphs (H),
(I) and (J) have been re-ordered to paragraphs (D), (G) and (J) in
today's rulemaking. By re-ordering these paragraphs, all paragraphs in
Sec. 80.75(b)(2)(ii) referring to a specific fuel parameter, e.g.,
sulfur, are grouped together, for benefit of the reader. Section 80.105
has also been modified from the proposal, and now requires that a
refiner's or importer's simple model standards for conventional
gasoline be reported (in addition to the requirements contained in the
December 1993 final rule and those contained in the proposal being
finalized today). This minor revision results in similar reporting
requirements for both reformulated and conventional gasoline under the
simple model.
III. Environmental and Economic Impacts
No environmental impacts are expected as a result of today's
action. Economic impacts should be generally beneficial to refiners as
one purpose of this action is to reduce any adverse competitive harm
that could occur without this change. The environmental and economic
impacts of the reformulated gasoline program are described in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis supporting the December 1993 rule, which is
available in Public Docket A-92-12 located at Room M-1500, Waterside
Mall (ground floor), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
IV. Compliance With the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires federal
agencies to examine the effects of their regulations and to identify
any significant adverse impacts of those regulations on a substantial
number of small entities. Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In fact, today's action is designed to
minimize any adverse competitive impacts since only individual baseline
exhaust emissions, and not individual baseline fuel parameters values,
will be published. Additionally, by this action, less baseline
information will automatically be deemed non-confidential.
V. Administrative Designation
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the executive order. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action''.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this action
as it does not involve the collection of information as defined
therein.
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a
budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that
includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate; or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the
most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements.
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by
the rule.
EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This action has the net effect of
reducing burden of the reformulated gasoline program on regulated
entities. Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do
not apply to this action.
VIII. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by
Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives,
Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 12, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 80 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 114, 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a)).
2. Section 80.75 is amended by revising the heading for paragraph
(b)(2), and by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(D) through (G), and
adding paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) (H) through (J) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.75 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Sulfur, olefins and T90 averaging reports.
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) The difference between the applicable sulfur content standard
under Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(i) in parts per million and the average sulfur
content under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) of this section in parts per
million, indicating whether the average is greater or lesser than the
applicable standard;
(E) The applicable olefin content standard under
Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(i) in volume percent;
(F) The average olefin content in volume percent;
(G) The difference between the applicable olefin content standard
under Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(i) in volume percent and the average olefin
content under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(F) of this section in volume
percent, indicating whether the
[[Page 65575]]
average is greater or lesser than the applicable standard;
(H) The applicable T90 distillation point standard under
Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(i) in degrees Fahrenheit;
(I) The average T90 distillation point in degrees Fahrenheit; and
(J) The difference between the applicable T90 distillation point
standard under Sec. 80.41(h)(2)(i) in degrees Fahrenheit and the
average T90 distillation point under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(I) of this
section in degrees Fahrenheit, indicating whether the average is
greater or lesser than the applicable standard.
* * * * *
3. Section 80.93 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.93 Individual baseline submission and approval.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Confidential business information.
(i) Upon approval of an individual baseline, EPA will publish the
individual annualized baseline exhaust emissions, on an annual average
basis, specified in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section. Such
individual baseline exhaust emissions shall not be considered
confidential. In addition, the reporting information required under
Sec. 80.75(b)(2)(ii) (D), (G) and (J), and Sec. 80.105(a)(4)(i) (E),
(H) and (K) shall not be considered confidential.
(ii) Information in the baseline submission which the submitter
desires to be considered confidential business information (per 40 CFR
part 2, subpart B) must be clearly identified. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA,
the information may be made available to the public without further
notice to the submitter pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
* * * * *
4. Section 80.105 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 80.105 Reporting requirements.
(a) * * *
(4)(i) If using the simple model:
(A) The applicable exhaust benzene emissions standard under
Sec. 80.101(b)(1)(i);
(B) The average exhaust benzene emissions under Sec. 80.101(g);
(C) The applicable sulfur content standard under
Sec. 80.101(b)(1)(ii) in parts per million;
(D) The average sulfur content under Sec. 80.101(g) in parts per
million;
(E) The difference between the applicable sulfur content standard
under Sec. 80.101(b)(1)(ii) in parts per million and the average sulfur
content under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(D) of this section in parts per
million, indicating whether the average is greater or lesser than the
applicable standard;
(F) The applicable olefin content standard under
Sec. 80.101(b)(1)(iii) in volume percent;
(G) The average olefin content under Sec. 80.101(g) in volume
percent;
(H) The difference between the applicable olefin content standard
under Sec. 80.101(b)(1)(iii) in volume percent and the average olefin
content under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(G) of this section in volume percent,
indicating whether the average is greater or lesser than the applicable
standard;
(I) The applicable T90 distillation point standard under
Sec. 80.101(b)(1)(iv) in degrees Fahrenheit;
(J) The average T90 distillation point under Sec. 80.101(g) in
degrees Fahrenheit; and
(K) The difference between the applicable T90 distillation point
standard under Sec. 80.101(b)(1)(iv) in degrees Fahrenheit and the
average T90 distillation point under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(J) of this
section in degrees Fahrenheit, indicating whether the average is
greater or lesser than the applicable standard.
(ii) If using the optional complex model, the applicable exhaust
benzene emissions standard and the average exhaust benzene emissions,
under Sec. 80.101(b)(2) and (g).
(iii) If using the complex model:
(A) The applicable exhaust toxics emissions standard and the
average exhaust toxics emissions, under Sec. 80.101(b)(3) and (g); and
(B) The applicable NOX emissions standard and the average
NOX emissions, under Sec. 80.101(b)(3) and (g).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-30986 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30976 Metalaxyl; Pesticide Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65578-65581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30976]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65579]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 2F4105/R2191; FRL-4989-2]
RIN 2070-AB78
Metalaxyl; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes tolerances for combined residues of the
fungicide metalaxyl [N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl) alanine
methyl ester] and its metabolites containing the 2,6-dimethylaniline
moiety and N-(2-hydroxymethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-alanine
methyl ester, each expressed as metalaxyl, in or on clover, forage at
1.0 part per million (ppm) and clover, hay at 2.5 ppm. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
submitted a petition pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA) for the regulation to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of the fungicide.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on December 4, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [PP 2F4105/R2191], may be submitted to:
Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections shall be
labeled Tolerance Petition Fees and forwarded to EPA Headquarters
Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P. O. Box 360277M,
Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and hearing requests
filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the document
control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing requests to
Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
A copy of any objections and hearing requests filed with the
Hearing Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of
objections and hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file
avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
Copies of objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on
disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All
copies of objections and hearing requests in electronic form must be
identified by the document number [PP 2F4105/R2191]. No Confidential
Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic copies of objections and hearing requests on this rule may
be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions can be found below in this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Connie B. Welch, Product
Manager (PM) 21, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 227, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305-6226; e-mail:
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice of filing, published in
the Federal Register of June 15, 1995 (60 FR 31465), which announced
that Ciba-Geigy Corp., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, had
submitted a pesticide petition, PP 2F4105, to EPA requesting that the
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), establish tolerances for combined residues of the fungicide
metalaxyl [N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl) alanine methyl
ester] and its metabolites containing the 2,6-dimethylaniline moiety
and N-(2-hydroxymethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-alanine methyl
ester, each expressed as metalaxyl, in or on the raw agricultural
commmodities cover, forage at 1.0 ppm and clover, hay at 2.5 ppm.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of
filing. The scientific data submitted in the petition and other
relevant material have been evaluated. The toxicological data
considered in support of the tolerance include:
1. A 3-month dietary study in rats with a no-observed-effect level
(NOEL) at 17.5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) body weight (bwt)/day
(250 parts per million (ppm)).
2. A developmental toxicity study in rats with a NOEL of 50 mg/kg
bwt for developmental toxicity and maternal toxicity.
3. A developmental toxicity study in rabbits with a NOEL of 300 mg/
kg bwt highest dose tested (HDT). Metalaxyl did not cause developmental
toxicity, even in the presence of maternal toxicity.
4. Metalaxyl was negative in bacterial and mammalian gene mutation.
The fungicide also did not increase the frequency of reverse mutations
in yeast. Metalaxyl was negative in an in vivo cytogenetics assay
(hamsters) and a dominant-lethal assay (mice).
Metalaxyl did not increase unscheduled DNA synthesis in rat primary
hepatocytes or in human fibroblasts. These results suggest that
metalaxyl is not genotoxic.
5. A three-generation rat reproduction study with a NOEL of 63 mg/
kg bwt/day (1,250 ppm).
6. A 6-month dog feeding study with a NOEL of 6.3 mg/kg bwt/day
(250 ppm). Effects found at 25 mg/kg were increased serum alkaline
phosphatase activity and increased liver weight and liver-to-brain
weight ratios without histological changes.
7. A 2-year rat chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study with no
compound-related carcinogenic effects under the conditions of the study
at dietary levels up to 1,250 ppm. The NOEL is 13 mg/kg bwt/day (250
ppm). The lowest-observed-effect level (LOEL) is 63 mg/kg/day based
upon slight increases in liver weight to body weight ratios and
periacinar vacuolation of hepatocytes.
8. A 2-year mouse oncogenic study with no compound-related
carcinogenic effects under the conditions of the study at dietary
levels up to 190 mg/kg/day.
Because of concerns raised over some equivocal increases in tumor
incidences in the male mouse liver and the male rat adrenal medulla,
and the female rat thyroid, the two chronic feeding studies were
submitted to the Environmental Pathology Laboratories (EPL) for an
independent reading of the microscopic slides. The new pathological
evaluation by EPL and the original reports of the rat and mouse
oncogenicity studies were then both submitted for review to EPA's
Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG). A final review of the
carcinogenicity studies and related material was performed by the Peer
Review Committee of the Toxicology Branch (TB) of the Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP).
The four major issues evaluated by CAG and the peer review group
included: (1) Perifollicular cell adenomas in the thyroid of female
rats; (2) adrenal medullary tumors (pheochromocytomas) in male rats;
(3) liver tumors in male mice; and (4) whether the HDT (1,250 ppm) in
the rat and mouse oncogenicity studies represented a maximum-tolerated
dose (MTD).
Regarding the thyroid tumors in female rats, the peer review group
concluded that the increased incidences of thyroid tumors in females of
treated groups were not compound related. This
[[Page 65580]]
conclusion was based on the following: (1) There was no progression of
benign tumors (adenomas) to malignancy (carcinomas); (2) there was no
increase in hyperplastic changes; (3) there was no dose-response
relationship; and (4) the two reevaluations of the microscopic slides
by the pathologists at EPL and TB in OPP further did not confirm any
apparent effects observed in the original report.
The issue of a possible treatment-related increase of adrenal
medullary gland tumors, namely, pheochromocytomas, in the male rat was
also reassessed by both CAG and the Peer Review Committee. Both
concluded that the data, especially in view of the reevaluation of the
microscopic slides performed by EPL, did not support a compound-related
increase of adrenal medullary tumors; the incidence of
pheochromocytomas more accurately represented spontaneous variations of
a commonly occurring tumor in the aged rat.
The analysis of the significance of the equivocal increase in the
incidence of liver tumors in male mice was very similar to that
performed for the rat thyroid and adrenal gland tumors. The original
pathological reading of the tissue slides reported an elevated increase
of tumors in some treatment groups; however, these increases were not
evident after a reevaluation of themicroscopic slides was performed by
an independent pathologist at EPL and by the reading of a CAG
pathologist. The Peer Review Committee concurred that the reevaluation
of the slides is reliable and does not show any compound-related
increase in the incidence of liver tumors in the mouse.
The Agency believes that the data from the rat and mouse long-term
studies are sufficient to support the conclusion that metalaxyl does
not show a carcinogenic potential in laboratory animals. This
conclusion is supported by the following: (1) The doses tested in both
the rat and mouse long-term studies approached an MTD based upon
compound-related changes in liver weight and/or liver histology; (2)
extensive available mutagenic evidence indicates no potential genotoxic
activity which correlates with the negative carcinogenic potential
demonstrated in long-term testing; (3) metalaxyl is not structurally
related to known carcinogens; and (4) under the conditions of the rat
and mouse tests, no indication of compound-related carcinogenic effects
was noted at any of the treatment doses, sexes, or species.
The reference dose (RfD), anticipated residue contribution (ARC),
and food additive regulations are covered by existing tolerances.
The nature of the residue is adequately understood. The enforcement
methodology has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for
publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume II (PAM II).
Because of the long lead time for publication of the method in PAM II,
the analytical methodology is being made available in the interim to
anyone interested in pesticide enforcement when requested from: Calvin
Furlow, Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations
Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office
location and telephone number: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-5232.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerances established by amending 40 CFR part 180
will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerances are
established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
EPA has established a record for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 2F4105/R2191] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as (CBI), is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
legal holidays. The public record is located in Rm. 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must judge whether a rule is
``major'' and therefore requires a Regulatory Impact Analysis. This
rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review as required by Executive Order 12866.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), EPA has
determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 4, 1995.
[[Page 65581]]
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.408(a) by revising the introductory text and by
amending the table therein by adding and alphabetically inserting new
entries for clover, forage and clover, hay, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.408 Metalaxyl; tolerances for residues.
(a) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
fungicide metalaxyl [N-(2,6-dmethylphyenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl) alanine
methylester] and its metabolites containing the 2,6-dimethylaniline
moiety, and N-(2-hydroxy methyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-
alanine methyl ester, each expressed as metalaxyl equivalents, in or on
the following raw agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Clover, forage............................................. 1.0
Clover, hay................................................ 2.5
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-30976 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30975 Avermectin BINF1 and Its Delta-8,9-Isomer; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65577-65578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30975]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 9F3787/R2194; FRL-4991-1]
RIN 2070-AB78
Avermectin B1 and Its Delta-8,9-Isomer; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document establishes a tolerance for combined residues of
the insecticide avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on
the raw agricultural commodity pears. Merck Research Laboratories
requested this regulation to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of the insecticide pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective December 20, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number [PP 9F3787/R2194], may be submitted to: Hearing
Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the
document control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing
requests to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
22202. Fees accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance
Petition Fees'' and forwarded to EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations
Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [PP
9F3787/R2194]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: George LaRocca, Product
Manager (PM) 13, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 204, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-6100; e-mail:
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice, published in the
Federal Register of November 1, 1989 (54 FR 46118), which announced
that Merck Research Laboratories, Inc., Hillsborough Rd., Three
Bridges, NJ 98887, had submitted a pesticide petition (PP 9F3787) to
EPA requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408(d) of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d),
establish a tolerance for combined residues of the insecticide
avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on the raw
agricultural commodity (RAC) pears at 0.035 part per million (ppm). In
a letter dated September 22, 1993, Merck requested that the pesticide
petition be amended by proposing a lower tolerance on pears at 0.02
ppm. No comments were received in response to the notice of filing (See
58 FR 64583; Dec. 8, 1993).
The data submitted in support of this tolerance and other relevant
material have been reviewed. The toxicological and metabolism data
considered in support of this tolerance are discussed in detail in
related documents published in the Federal Register of May 31, 1989 (54
FR 23209, cottonseed) and August 2, 1989 (54 FR 31836, citrus). The
Agency used a two-generation rat reproduction study with an uncertainty
factor of 300 to establish a Reference Dose (RfD). The 300-fold
uncertainty factor was utilized for (1) inter- and intra-species
differences, (2) the extremely serious nature (pup death) observed in
the reproduction study, (3) maternal toxicity (lethality) no-
observable-effect level (NOEL) (0.05 mg/kg/day), and (4) cleft palate
in the mouse developmental toxicity study with isomer (NOEL = 0.06 mg/
kg/day). Thus, based on a NOEL of 0.12 mg/kg/day from the two-
generation rat reproduction and an uncertainty factor of 300, the RfD
is 0.0004 mg/kg/body weight(bwt)/day.
A chronic dietary exposure/risk assessment has been performed for
avermectin B1 using the above RfD. Available information on
anticipated residues and 100% crop treated was incorporated into the
analysis to estimate the Anticipated Residue Contribution (ARC). The
ARC is generally considered a more realistic estimate than an estimate
based on the tolerance level residues. The ARC for established
tolerances and the current action is estimated at 0.000013 mg/kg/bwt/
day and utilizes 3.4 percent of the RfD for the U.S. population. For
nonnursing infants less than 1-year old (the sub-group population with
the highest exposure level) the ARC for established tolerances and the
current action is estimated at 0.000030 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 7.5%
of the RfD. Generally speaking, the Agency has no cause for concern if
anticipated residues contribution for all published and proposed
tolerances is less than the RfD.
Because of the developmental effects seen in animal studies, the
Agency used the mouse teratology study (with a NOEL of 0.06 mg/kg/day
for developmental toxicity for the delta-8,9 isomer) to assess acute
dietary exposure and determine a margin of exposure (MOE) for the
overall U.S. population and certain subgroups. Since the toxicological
end point pertains to developmental toxicity, the population group of
interest for this analysis is women aged 13 and above, the subgroup
which most closely approximates women of child-bearing ages. The MOE is
calculated as the ratio of the NOEL to the exposure. For this analysis,
the Agency calculated the MOE for the high-end exposures for women ages
13 and above. The MOE is 1,000. Generally speaking, MOEs greater than
100 for
[[Page 65578]]
developmental toxicity do not raise concerns.
The metabolism of the chemical in plants and animals for the use is
adequately understood. Secondary residues occurring in livestock and
their by-products are not expected since there are no known animal feed
stock uses for pears. Adequate analytical methodology (HPLC-
Fluorescence Methods) is available for enforcement purposes. The
enforcement methodology has been submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration for publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol.
II (PAM II). Because of the long lead time for publication of the
method in PAM II, the analytical methodology is being made available in
the interim to anyone interested in pesticide enforcement when
requested from Calvin Furlow, Public Response and Program Resource
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 1132,
CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-5232.
The tolerances established by amending 40 CFR part 180 will be
adequate to cover residues in or on pears. There are currently no
actions pending against the continued registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has determined
that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180 would
protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the tolerance
be established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections and/or request a hearing with the Hearing Clerk, at
the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the objections and/
or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be submitted to
the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The objections submitted must
specify the provisions of the regulation deemed objectionable and the
grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). Each objection must be
accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is
requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual
issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions
on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the
objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing will be granted if
the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the
following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a
reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the
requestor would, if established, resolve one or more of such issues in
favor or the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts
to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner
sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action
requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 9F3787/R2194] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper version of electronic comments, which does not
include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystall Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
oop-D[email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 7, 1995.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 continues to read as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation of part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. By amending Sec. 180.449(b) in the table therein by adding and
alphabetically inserting an entry for pears, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.449 Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer; tolerances
for residues.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Pears...................................................... 0.02
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 95-30975 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30974 Thiodicarb; Extension of Pesticide Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65575-65577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30974]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 6F3417 and 7F3516/R2192; FRL-4990-7]
RIN 2070-AB78
Thiodicarb; Extension of Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule extends until August 15, 1997, the temporary
tolerances for the insecticide thiodicarb and its metabolite in or on
leafy vegetables, broccoli, cabbage, and cauliflower. Rhone Poulenc Ag.
Co. requested this regulation pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective December 20, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [PP 6F3417 and 7F3516/R2192], may be submitted
to: Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and
hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by
the document control number and submitted to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing
requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
22202. Fees accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance
Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting
Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh,
PA 15251.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [PP
6F3417 and 7F3516/R2192]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI)
should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and
hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions
can be found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Dennis Edwards, Jr., Product
Manager (PM 19), Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 213, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202; (703) 305-6386; e-mail:
[email protected].
[[Page 65576]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to petitions from the Rhone Poulenc
Ag. Co., P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, EPA issued
final rules establishing temporary tolerances for residues of the
combined residues of the insecticide thiodicarb in or on leafy
vegetables at 35 parts per million (ppm) and broccoli, cabbage, and
cauliflower at 7 ppm (see the Federal Register of August 11, 1993 (58
FR 42673)). To be consistent with conditional registrations for
thiodicarb on leafy vegetables and broccoli, cabbage, and cauliflower,
which were due to expire December 31, 1995, the Agency established the
tolerances with an expiration date of August 15, 1996, to cover
residues expected to be present from use during the period of
conditional registration while the Agency continued to review studies
of acetamide, a metabolite, and the chronic carcinogenicity studies for
thiodicarb. The Agency concluded that the human risk posed by the use
of thiodicarb on leafy vegetables and broccoli, cabbage, and
cauliflower does not raise significant concerns and that extending the
tolerances would still be protective of human health. The Agency is
continuing to review submitted toxicology studies.
In a notice in the Federal Register of October 25, 1995 (60 FR
54690), the Agency announced the receipt of a request from Rhone
Poulenc Ag. Co. to extend the temporary tolerances for thiodicarb and
its metabolite for leafy vegetables, broccoli, cabbage, and cauliflower
for 1 year with an expiration date of August 15, 1997. No comments were
received as a result of the notice. Therefore, as set forth below, the
temporary tolerances are extended for an additional year with an
expiration date of August 15, 1997, to cover residues existing from the
continued conditional registration of thiodicarb. The tolerances could
be made permanent if full registration is subsequently granted. Notice
of further action on these tolerances will be published for comment in
the Federal Register. Residues remaining in or on the above raw
agricultural commodities after expiration of the tolerances will not be
considered actionable if the pesticide is legally applied during the
term of, and in accordance with, provisions of the conditional
registrations.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 6F3417 and 7F3516/R2192] (including objections and hearing
requests submitted electronically as described below). A public version
of this record, including printed, paper versions of electronic
comments, which does not include any information claimed as CBI, is
available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is located in Room
1132 of the Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA.
Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the document
control number [PP 6F3417 and 7F3516/R2192], may be submitted to the
Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 3708, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
A copy of electronic objections and hearing requests filed with the
Hearing Clerk can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
A copy of electronic objections and hearing requests filed with the
Hearing Clerk must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any objections and hearing requests received
electronically into printed, paper form as they are received and will
place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which will
also include all objections and hearing requests submitted directly in
writing. The official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained
at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 65577]]
Dated: December 5, 1995.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
Sec. 180.407 [Amended]
2. Section 180.407 Thiodicarb; tolerances for residues is amended
in paragraph (b) introductory text by changing ``August 15, 1996'' to
read ``August 15, 1997'', and in paragraph (c) introductory text by
changing ``August 15, 1996'' to read ``August 15, 1997''.
[FR Doc. 95-30974 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30973 1,3-Propanediamine, N, N'-1,2-ethanediylbis-, Polymer with 2,4,6- Trichloro-1,3,5-triazine, Reaction Products with N-Butyl-2,2,6,6- tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine; Modification of Significant New Use Rules
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65581-65582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30973]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 721
[OPPTS-50582L; FRL-4982-9]
RIN 2070-AB27
1,3-Propanediamine, N, N'-1,2-ethanediylbis-, Polymer with 2,4,6-
Trichloro-1,3,5-triazine, Reaction Products with N-Butyl-2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine; Modification of Significant New Use Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is modifying the significant new use rule (SNUR)
promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) for 1,3-propanediamine, N, N'-1,2-ethanediylbis-, polymer with
2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine, reaction products with N-butyl-2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine based on a modification to the TSCA 5(e)
consent order regulating the substance. EPA is modifying this rule
based on receipt of toxicity data.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this rule is January 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director, TSCA
Assistance Office (7408), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-543B, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 554-1404, TDD: (202) 554-0551;
e-mail: TSCA-H[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of August 15, 1990
(55 FR 33296), EPA issued a SNUR (FRL-3741-8) establishing significant
new uses for 1,3-propanediamine, N, N'-1,2-ethanediylbis-, polymer with
2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine, reaction products with N-butyl-2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine based on the section 5(e) consent order
for the substance. Because of additional data EPA has received for this
substance, EPA is modifying the SNUR.
I. Background
The Agency proposed the modification of the SNUR (FRL-4919-6) for
this substance in the Federal Register of May 30, 1995 (60 FR 28075).
The background and reasons for the modification of the SNUR are set
forth in the preamble to the proposed modification. The Agency received
no public comment concerning the proposed modification. As a result EPA
is modifying this SNUR.
II. Objectives and Rationale of Modification of the Rule
During review of the premanufacture notice (PMN) submitted for the
chemical substance that is the subject of this modification, EPA
concluded that regulation was warranted under section 5(e) of TSCA
pending the development of information sufficient to make a reasoned
evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the substances.
EPA identified the tests considered necessary to evaluate the risks of
the substances and identified the protective equipment necessary to
protect any workers who may be exposed to the substances. The basis for
such findings is in the rulemaking record referenced in Unit III of
this preamble. Based on these findings, a section 5(e) consent order
modification was negotiated with the PMN submitter.
In light of the petition to modify the consent order and SNUR, the
90-day subchronic test, the data on structurally similar polycationic
polymers, and the recalculation of the risk assessment of the PMN
substances based on information provided by the petitioner, the Agency
determined that it could no longer support a finding that the PMN
substance may present an unreasonable risk to human health or the
environment for the hazard communication and respiratory protection
requirements in this modification. The modification of SNUR provisions
for the substances designated herein is consistent with the provisions
of the section 5(e) order.
III. Rulemaking Record
The record for the rule which EPA is modifying was established at
OPPTS-50582. This record includes information considered by the Agency
in developing this rule and includes the modification to consent orders
to which the Agency has responded with this modification.
A public version of the record, without any Confidential Business
Information, is available in the OPPT Non-Confidential Information
Center (NCIC) from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
legal holidays. The TSCA NCIC is located in the Northeast Mall Basement
Rm. B-607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC.
IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
EPA is modifying the requirements of this rule by eliminating
several requirements. Any costs or burdens associated with this rule
will be reduced when the rule is modified. Therefore, EPA finds that no
additional assessments of costs or burdens are necessary under
Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), or the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous materials,
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements, Significant new uses.
Dated: December 11, 1995.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is amended to read as follows:
PART 721--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 65582]]
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
2. Section 721.7280 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and
(b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 721.7280 1,3-Propanediamine, N, N'-1,2-ethanediylbis-, polymer
with 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine, reaction products with N-butyl-
2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine.
(a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as 1,3-propanediamine,
N, N'-1,2-ethanediylbis-, polymer with 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine,
reaction products with N-butyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine
(PMN P-89-632) is subject to reporting under this section for the
significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in
Sec. 721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5)(i), (a)(5)(ii),
(a)(5)(iv), (a)(5)(v), (a)(6)(i), (a)(6)(ii), (b) (concentration set at
0.1 percent), and (c).
(ii) Hazard communication program. Requirements as specified in
Sec. 721.72 (a) through (f), (g)(1)(iv), (g)(1)(viii), (g)(2)(i),
(g)(2)(ii), (g)(2)(iii), (g)(2)(iv), (g)(2)(v), and (g)(5).
* * * * *
(b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
(1) Recordkeeping. The following recordkeeping requirements are
applicable to manufacturers, importers, and processors of this
substance, as specified in Sec. 721.125 (a) through (i).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-30973 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30968 Security Zone Regulations; Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65570-65571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30968]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Jacksonville Regulation 93-115]
RIN 2115-AA97
Security Zone Regulations; Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing an existing security zone on the
St. Johns river, Jacksonville, Florida, and establishing a security
zone for the waters surrounding Naval Air Station Jacksonville,
Florida. The change will delete an existing security zone for the north
bank of the St. Johns river at the junction of Brills Cut Range and
Broward Point Turn, known as Dunn Creek Terminal. The change also
establishes a security zone around Naval Air Station Jacksonville to
safeguard sensitive military assets on the facility. No person or
vessel may enter or remain in the zone without the permission of the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville, Florida.
EFFECTIVE DATES: January 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LT E.W. Heinold, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Jacksonville, Florida
at (904) 232-2957.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 19, 1994, the Coast Guard published a
notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for these
regulations (59 FR 26155). Interested persons were requested to submit
comments and no comments were received. One minor correction has been
made since the notice of proposed rulemaking; the proposed section,
Sec. 165.709 will now read Sec. 165.722. This correction will allow
this regulation to be located in Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) with other regulations for the MSO Jacksonville area of
responsibility. As a matter of general interest the Coast Guard notes
that this final regulation provides, that no person or vessel may enter
or remain in the zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville, Florida. Title 33 CFR 6.04-11 authorizes the Captain of
the Port to enlist the aid and cooperation of Federal, State, county,
municipal, and private agencies to assist in the enforcement of
regulations issued pursuant to that part. The Captain of the Port of
Jacksonville advises that the aid and cooperation of the Commanding
Officer, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL has been enlisted to assist
in the enforcement of this security zone.
Drafting Information
The drafters of these regulations are LT E.W. Heinold, project
officer for the Captain of the Port Jacksonville, Florida and LTJG J.
Diaz, project attorney, Seventh Coast Guard District Legal Office.
Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
[[Page 65571]]
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of these
regulations consistent with section 2.B.2.e.(34)(g) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B and the establishment of a security zone has been
determined to be categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation.
Regulatory Evaluation
These regulations are considered to be non-major under Executive
Order 12291 on Federal Regulation and nonsignificant under the
Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR
11034; February 26, 1979). The economic impact of these regulations is
expected to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is
unnecessary. Recreational use of the area will be affected. The
security zone will extend 400 feet from the shoreline and the depth of
water in this area is such that commercial traffic will not be
affected.
Since the impact of these regulations is expected to be minimal,
the Coast Guard certifies that it will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
Final Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, part 165 of Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
Sec. 165.710 [Removed]
2. Section 165.710 is removed.
3. Section 165.722 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.722 Security Zone: St. Johns River, Jacksonville, Florida.
(a) Location. The water located within the following area is
established as a security zone: beginning at the shoreline of the St.
Johns River at the northernmost property line of Naval Air Station
Jacksonville next to Timuquana Country Club, at 30 deg.14'39.5'' N,
81 deg.40'45'' W; thence northeasterly to 30 deg.14'42'' N,
81 deg.40'42'' W; thence south remaining 400 feet from the shoreline at
mean high water; thence past Piney Point and Black Point to the
northern edge of Mulberry Cover Manatee refuge, 400 feet from Naval Air
Station Jacksonville boat ramp, at 30 deg.13'00'' N, 81 deg.40'23.5''
W; thence southwesterly in a straight line to position 30 deg.12'14''
N, 81 deg.40'42'' W; thence southerly, remaining 400' seaward of the
mean high water shoreline to 30 deg.11'40'' N, 81 deg.41'15.5'' W;
thence northwest to the point at the end of the property line of Naval
Air Station Jacksonville just north of the Buckman Bridge at position
30 deg.11'42.30'' N, 81 deg.41'23.66'' W; thence northeasterly along
the mean high water shoreline of the St. Johns River and Mulberry Cove
to the point of beginning. Datum: NAD 83
(b) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec. 165.33 of
this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the zone without
the permission of the Captain of the Port Jacksonville, Florida. All
other portions of Sec. 165.33 remain applicable.
(c) This regulation does not apply to Coast Guard vessels and
authorized law enforcement vessels operating within the Security Zone.
Dated: December 8, 1995.
A. Regalbuto,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Jacksonville, Florida.
[FR Doc. 95-30968 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30965 List of Communities Eligible for the Sale of Flood Insurance
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65582-65586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30965]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket No. FEMA-7630]
List of Communities Eligible for the Sale of Flood Insurance
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities participating in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These communities have applied to the
program and have agreed to enact certain floodplain management
measures. The communities' participation in the program authorizes the
sale of flood insurance to owners of property located in the
communities listed.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The dates listed in the third column of the table.
ADDRESSES: Flood insurance policies for property located in the
communities listed can be obtained from any licensed property insurance
agent or broker serving the eligible community, or from the NFIP at:
Post Office Box 6464, Rockville, MD 20849, (800) 638-6620.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Shea, Jr., Division
Director, Program Implementation Division, Mitigation Directorate, 500
C Street, SW., room 417, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future
flooding. Since the communities on the attached list have recently
entered the NFIP, subsidized flood insurance is now available for
property in the community.
In addition, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency has identified the special flood hazard areas in some of these
communities by publishing a Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the flood map, if one has been
published, is indicated in the third column of the table. In the
communities listed where a flood map
[[Page 65583]]
has been published, Section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4012(a), requires the purchase of flood
insurance as a condition of Federal or federally related financial
assistance for acquisition or construction of buildings in the special
flood hazard areas shown on the map.
The Director finds that the delayed effective dates would be
contrary to the public interest. The Director also finds that notice
and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and
unnecessary.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Associate Director certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U. S. C. 601 et
seq., because the rule creates no additional burden, but lists those
communities eligible for the sale of flood insurance.
Regulatory Classification
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not involve any collection of information for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987
Comp., p. 252.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991
Comp., p. 309.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
PART 64--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 64.6 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 64.6 are
amended as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community
Sate/location No. Effective date of eligibility Current effective map date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Eligibles--Emergency Program
North Carolina: Hertford County, 370130 Oct. 6, 1995.................. June 2, 1978.
unincorporated areas.
Texas: Oakwood, city of, Leon County.. 480437 Oct. 13, 1995................. Feb. 6, 1976.
Georgia: Putman County, unincorporated 130540 Oct. 23, 1995................. .............................
areas.
Michigan: Gourley, township of, 260455 ...do......................... .............................
Menominee County.
South Carolina: Pamplico, town of, 450081 ...do......................... Apr. 23, 1976.
Florence County.
Kansas: Miami County, unincorporated 200220 Nov. 6, 1995.................. June 7, 1977.
areas.
Texas:
Roma, city of, Starr County....... 480577 Nov. 20, 1995................. June 4, 1976.
Leon County, unincorporated areas. 480903 Nov. 24, 1995................. .............................
New Eligibles--Regular Program
South Carolina: Gilbert, town of, 450132 Oct. 13, 1995................. July 17, 1995.
Lexington County.
California: Buellton, city of, Santa 060757 Oct. 16, 1995................. .............................
Barbara County\1\.
North Carolina: Cleveland County, 370302 Oct. 23, 1995................. July 2, 1991.
unincorporated areas.
Iowa:
DeWitt, city of, Clinton County \2\... 190568 Oct. 27, 1995................. .............................
Reinstatements
New York: Lima, village of, Livington 361457 Jan. 11, 1980, Emerg; July 23, July 23, 1982.
County. 1982, Reg; Nov. 4, 1992,
Susp; Oct. 4, 1995, Rein.
Pennsylania:
Bellevue, borough of, Allegheny 420009 Feb. 17, 1977, Emerg; Dec. 15, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1978, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 13, 1995, Rein.
Emsworth, borough of, Allegheny 420034 June 20, 1975, Emerg; Sept. Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 30, 1980, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 13, 1995, Rein.
Briar Creek, borough of, Columbia 420340 Aug. 31, 1973, Emerg; Aug. 15, Feb. 16, 1995.
County. 1979, Reg; Feb. 16, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 13, 1995, Rein.
Upper St. Clair, township of 421119 June 11, 1974, Emerg; Mar. 15, Oct. 4, 1995.
Allegheny County. 1984, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 13, 1995, Rein.
Illinois:
New Lenox, village of, Will County 170706 Sept. 19, 1974, Emerg; May 1, Sept. 6, 1995.
1980, Reg; Sept. 6, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 16, 1995, Rein.
Kincaid, village of, Christian 170858 Apr. 7, 1976, Emerg; April 1, Apr. 1, 1993.
County. 1993, Reg; Apr. 1, 1993,
Susp; Oct. 19, 1995, Rein.
Pennsylvania: McCandless, township of, 421081 Oct. 4, 1974, Emerg; June 18, Oct. 4, 1995.
Allegheny County. 1980, Reg; Oct 4, 1995, Susp;
Oct. 19, 1995, Rein.
New York: Sandy Creek, town of, Oswego 360661 Aug. 18, 1975, Emerg; Oct. 15, July 17, 1995.
County. 1981, Reg; July 17, 1995,
Susp; Oct 20, 1995, Rein.
Pennsylvania:
Forward, township of, Allegheny 421064 Sept. 27, 1994, Emerg; Feb. 1, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1980, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 23, 1995, Rein.
Cumberland, township of, Greene 421188 Jan. 27, 1976, Emerg; July 1, Sept. 20, 1995.
County. 1986, Reg; Sept. 20, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 23, 1995, Rein.
[[Page 65584]]
Stowe, township of, Allegheny 421110 Dec. 5, 1974, Emerg; Feb. 15, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1980, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 23, 1995, Rein.
New York:
Waverly, town of, Franklin County. 361126 Jan. 22, 1977, Emerg; Dec. 4, Dec. 4, 1985.
1985, Reg; Nov. 4, 1992,
Susp; Oct. 26, 1995, Rein.
Ballston Spa, village of, 360710 July 7, 1975, Emerg; June 1, Aug. 16, 1995.
Saratoga, County. 1984, Reg; Aug. 16, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 26, 1995, Rein.
Pennsylvania:
Carnegie, borough of, Allegheny 420019 July 3, 1973, Emerg; May 1, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1978, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 26, 1995, Rein.
South Versailles, township of, 421281 Aug. 7, 1974, Emerg; Aug. 1, Oct. 4, 1995.
Allegheny County. 1979, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 26, 1995, Rein.
Kennedy, township of, Allegheny 421072 Apr. 26, 1974, Emerg; Feb. 15, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1980, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 27, 1995, Rein.
Baldwin, borough of, Allegheny 420007 Nov. 19, 1973, Emerg; Aug. 15, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1978, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 31, 1995, Rein.
Brackenridge, borough of, 420014 Nov. 26, 1974, Emerg; Aug. 15, Oct. 4, 1995.
Allegheny County. 1980, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 31, 1995, Rein.
Crafton, borough of, Allegheny 420026 Apr. 15, 1974, Emerg; Dec. 19, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1980, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Oct. 31, 1995, Rein.
Wisconsin: Stanlay, city of, Chippewa 550047 Apr. 1, 1975, Emerg; Sept. 18, Sept. 18, 1985.
County. 1985, Reg; Sept. 18, 1985,
Susp; Oct. 31, Rein.
Indiana: Laurel, town of, Franklin 180306 May 27, 1975, Emerg; Sept. 1, Nov. 2, 1995.
County. 1988, Reg; Sept. 1, 1988,
Susp; Nov. 6, 1995, Rein.
Illinois: Peotone, village of, Will 170709 Aug. 14, 1974, Emerg; Jan. 14, Sept. 6, 1995.
County. 1983, Reg; Sept. 6, 1995,
Susp; Nov. 6, 1995, Rein.
Pennsylvania:
Harrison, township of, Potter 421978 Dec. 31, 1975, Emerg; June 1, June 1, 1995.
County. 1987, Reg; Aug. 2, 1993,
Susp; Nov. 7, 1995, Rein.
Neville, township of, Allegheny 425385 Mar. 19, 1971, Emerg; July 7, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1978, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Nov. 7, 1995, Rein.
Rankin, borough of, Allegheny 420067 Feb. 10, 1975, Emerg; July 2, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1980, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Nov. 20, 1995, Rein.
Indiana: Perry County, unincorporated. 180195 Apr. 11, 1975, Emerg; Nov. 1, Nov. 1, 1995.
1995, Reg; Nov. 1, 1995,
Susp; Nov. 24, 1995, Rein.
Mississippi: Philadelphia, city of, 280120 Nov. 2, 1974, Emerg; Sept. 29, Oct. 18, 1995.
Neshoba County. 1986, Reg; Oct. 18, 1995,
Susp; Nov. 24, 1995, Rein.
Virginia: Salem, city of, independent 510141 Mar. 8, 1974, Emerg; Sept. 2, Oct. 18, 1995.
city. 1981, Reg; Oct. 18, 1995,
Susp; Nov. 22, 1995, Rein.
Pennsylvania:
Oakmont, borough of, Allegheny 420060 July 25, 1974, Emerg; Jan. 16, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1981, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Nov. 27, 1995, Rein.
Green Tree, borough of, Allegheny 420040 June 27, 1974, Emerg; July 16, Oct. 4, 1995.
County. 1981, Reg; Oct. 4, 1995,
Susp; Nov. 30, 1995, Rein.
South Carolina: Edgefield County, 450229 July 12, 1991, Emerg; Apr. 1, Sept. 20, 1995.
unincorporated areas. 1993, Reg; Sept. 20, 1995,
Susp; Nov. 30, 1995, Rein.
Regular Program Conversions
Region III
Pennsylvania:
Aleppo, township of, Allegheny 421266 October 4, 1995............... 10-4-95.
County. Suspension Withdrawn
Aspinwall, borough of, Allegheny 420005 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Bell Acres, borough of, Allegheny 420008 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Bethel Park, Municipality of, 420012 ......do...................... Do.
Allegheny County.
Blawnox, borough of, Allegheny 420013 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Braddock, borough of, Allegheny 420015 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Bridgeville, borough of, Allegheny 420018 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Clairton, City of, Allegheny 420034 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Collier, township of, Allegheny 421058 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Corapolis, borough of, Allegheny 420025 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Dravosburg, borough of, Allegheny 420027 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Elizabeth, borough of, Allegheny 421263 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Elizabeth, township of, Allegheny 420033 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Etna, borough of, Allegheny County 421062 .....do....................... Do.
Fawn, township of, Allegheny 421285 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Findlay, township of, Allegheny 421286 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Glassport, borough of, Allegheny 420038 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Hampton, township of, Allegheny 420978 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Harmar, township of, Allegheny 421068 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Harrison, borough of, Allegheny 420041 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Haysville, borough of, Allegheny 420042 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Heidelberg, borough of, Allegheny 420043 .....do....................... Do.
County.
[[Page 65585]]
Homestead, borough of, Allegheny 420044 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Indiana, township of, Allegheny 421070 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Leet, township of, Allegheny 421075 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Leetsdale, borough of, Allegheny 420047 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Liberty, borough of, Allegheny 420048 .....do....................... Do.
County.
McDonald, borough of, Allegheny 420855 .....do....................... Do.
County.
McKeesport, city of, Allegheny 420051 .....do....................... Do.
County.
McKees Rocks, borough of, 420052 .....do....................... Do.
Allegheny County.
Mnuhall, borough of, Allegheny 420056 .....do....................... Do.
County.
North Fayette, township of, 421085 .....do....................... Do.
Allegheny County.
North Versailles, township of, 421231 .....do....................... Do.
Allegheny County.
O'Hara, township of, Allegheny 421088 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Penn Hills, Municipality of, 421092 .....do....................... Do.
Allegheny County.
Pine, township of, Allegheny 421094 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Pitcairn, borough of, Allegheny 420062 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Plum, borough of, Allegheny County 420065 .....do....................... Do.
Reserve, township of, Allegheny 420068 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Richland, township of, Allegheny 421199 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Robinson, township of, Allegheny 421079 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Sharpsburg, borough of, Allegheny 420073 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Springdale, township of, Allegheny 420074 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Swissvale, borough of, Allegheny 420075 .....do....................... Do.
County.
Tarentum, borough of, Allegheny 420076 ...... do..................... Do.
County.
Turtle Creek, borough of, 420079 ...... do..................... Do.
Allegheny County.
Verona, borough of, Allegheny 422611 ...... do..................... Do.
County.
Versailles, borough of, Allegheny 420081 ...... do..................... Do.
County.
Wall, borough of, Allegheny County 420082 ...... do..................... Do.
West Deer, township of, Allegheny 421299 ...... do..................... Do.
Couunty.
West Elizabeth, borough of, 420083 ...... do..................... Do.
Allegheny County.
Wilmerding, borough of, Allegheny 420091 ...... do..................... Do.
County.
Virginia: Hampton, independent city... 515527 ...... do..................... 7-3-95.
Region V
Illinois: Old Mill Creek, village of, 170385 ...... do..................... 8-1-80.
Lake County.
Regular Program Conversions
Region I
Maine: Auburn, city of, Androscoggin 230001 October 18, 1995.............. 10-18-95.
County. Suspension Withdrawn
Region III
Maryland: Oakland, town of, Garrett 240039 ...... do..................... Do.
County.
Pennsylvania:
East Bethlehem, township of, 422140 ...... do..................... Do.
Washington County.
Elco, borough of, Washington 420852 ...... do..................... Do.
County.
Henderson, township of, Huntingdon 420960 ...... do..................... Do.
County.
Monongahela, township of, Greene 421673 ...... do..................... Do.
County.
Virginia: Roanoke County, 510190 ...... do..................... Do.
unincorporated areas.
West Virginia:
Fairmont, city of, Marion County.. 540099 ...... do..................... Do.
Marion County, unincorporated 540097 ...... do..................... Do.
areas.
Morgantown, city of, Marion County 540141 ...... do..................... Do.
Star City, town of, Monongalia 540273 ...... do..................... Do.
County.
Region V
Ohio: Hamiltion County, unincorporated 390204 ...... do..................... Do.
areas.
Indiana:
Flora, town of, Carroll County.... 180021 November 1, 1995.............. 11-1-95.
Suspension Withdrawn
Scott County, unincorporated areas 180474 ......do...................... Do.
Vermillion County, unincorporated 180449 ......do...................... Do.
areas.
Ohio: Trimble, village of, Athens 390021 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Region I
Connecticut: Bozrah, town of, New 090094 November 2, 1995.............. 11-2-95.
London County. Suspension Withdrawn
Region II
New Jersey: South Belmar, borough of, 340328 ......do...................... Do.
Monmouth County.
Region III
Pennsylvania: Jefferson, township of, 421672 ......do...................... Do.
Greene County.
Region V
Illinois: Hampshire, village of, Kane 170327 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Indiana:
[[Page 65586]]
Brookville, town of, Franklin 180069 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Cedar Grove, town of, Franklin 180304 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Franklin County, unincorporated 180068 ......do...................... Do.
areas.
Michigan: Montrose, township of, 260399 ......do...................... Do.
Genessee County.
Ohio: Napoleon, city of, Henry County. 390266 ......do...................... Do.
Wisconsin: Washburn, city of, Bayfield 550019 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Region VIII
Utah: Davis County, unincorporated 490038 ......do...................... Do.
areas.
Regular Program Conversions
Region II
New York:
Schroon, town of, Essex County.... 361158 November 16, 1995............. 11-16-95.
Suspension Withdrawn
Wilmington, town of, Essex County. 361161 ......do...................... Do.
Region III
Pennsylvania:
Allenport, borough of, Washington 420845 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Belle Vernon, borough of, Fayette 420457 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Brownsville, borough of, Fayette 420458 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Brownsville, township of, Fayette 421621 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Marion Center, borough of, Indiana 420503 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Stroud, township of, Monroe County 420693 ......do...................... Do.
Region V
Illinois: Mill Creek, village of, 170659 ......do...................... Do.
Union County.
Indiana: Carmel, city of, Hamilton 180081 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Ohio:
Laurelville, village of, Hocking 390273 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Meigs county, unincorporated areas 390387 ......do...................... Do.
Wisconsin: Clintonville, city of, 550494 ......do...................... Do.
Waupaca County.
Region VI
Louisiana:
Grant County, unincorporated areas 220076 ......do...................... Do.
New Roads, town of, Pointe Coupee 220144 ......do...................... Do.
Parish.
Pointe Coupee Parish, 220140 ......do...................... Do.
unincorporated areas.
Oklahoma: Comanche, city of, Comanche 400008 ......do...................... Do.
County.
Withdrawn
Oklahoma: Delaware Tribe of Western 40052 Oct. 18, 1985, Emerg; Jan. 18, 9-27-91.
Oklahoma, Caddo County. 1988, Reg; Dec. 16, 1992,
Susp; Feb. 18, 1993, Rein;
Nov. 20, 1995, With.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The City of Buellton has adopted by reference Santa Barbara County's Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for floodplain management and insurance purposes dated 6-3-92. (Santa Barbara
County's CID number is 060331; panels number 554, 555, 556 and 558).
\2\ The City of DeWitt has adopted by reference Clinton County's FIRM dated 9-1-90, for floodplain management
and insurance purposes. (Panels 21 and 13). Clinton County's CID number is 190859.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Rein.--Reinstatement; Susp.--Suspension; With.--
Withdrawn.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance.'')
Issued: December 15, 1995.
Robert H. Volland,
Acting Deputy Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate.
[FR Doc. 95-30965 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30962 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65523-65526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30962]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-245-AD; Amendment 39-9464; AD 95-26-06]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series
airplanes. This AD requires either that the control circuit breaker of
the left fuel pump valve be opened and collared, or that the Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM) be revised to prohibit autoland operation
[[Page 65524]]
below 100 feet above ground level (AGL). Additionally, this action
requires an inspection of the fuel system control panel (FSCP) to
detect any mis-wiring, and modification or replacement of the FSCP.
This AD also provides for an optional terminating modification for the
requirements of the AD. This amendment is prompted by a report of
improper wiring of the FSCP during production of these airplanes. The
actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent degradation of the
automatic landing system during flight due to improper wiring of the
FSCP.
DATES: Effective January 4, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 4, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before February 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-245-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,
California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business
Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may be
examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Vakili, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(310) 627-5262; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has received a report from McDonnell
Douglas indicating that improper wiring of the fuel system control
panel (FSCP) on Model MD-11 airplanes was detected during functional
checks performed during production. Investigation revealed that the
direct current (DC) electrical busses, numbers 1 and 3, had been tied
together; this could lead to a single short of one bus, which could
adversely affect the operation of the remaining bus. This condition, if
not corrected, could result in degradation of the automatic landing
system during flight.
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Alert Service
Bulletin MD11-28A081, dated November 30, 1995, which describes
procedures to open and collar the control circuit breaker, B1-458, of
the left fuel dump valve. This will reduce the redundancy of the fuel
dump system and the fuel dump rate so that autoland (dual land)
operations can be maintained. This alert service bulletin also provides
procedures for a conducting a one-time visual inspection of the FSCP to
detect any mis-wiring, and various necessary follow-on actions,
depending upon the result of the inspection. Necessary follow-on
actions include re-identification, modification, or replacement of the
FSCP, if necessary. (The McDonnell Douglas alert service bulletin
references Honeywell Service Bulletin 4059024-28-2, dated November 22,
1995, as an additional source of service information for inspection,
re-identification, and modification of the FSCP.)
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series
airplanes of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent
degradation of the automatic landing system during flight due to
improper wiring of the FSCP. This AD first requires either (1) That the
control circuit breaker of the left fuel pump valve be opened and
collared, in accordance with the McDonnell Douglas alert service
bulletin described previously; or (2) that the FAA-approved Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM) be revised to prohibit autoland operation below 100
feet above ground level (AGL).
Second, this AD also requires a one-time visual inspection of the
FSCP to detect any mis-wiring, and re-identification, modification, or
replacement of the FSCP, if necessary. These actions are required to be
accomplished in accordance with the McDonnell Douglas alert service
bulletin described previously. Additionally, operators must submit a
report of the results of the inspection to the FAA.
This AD also provides for an optional terminating action for the
requirements of the AD, which consists of replacing the FSCP with a
modified unit.
This is considered to be interim action. The FAA may consider
further rulemaking action to require the accomplishment of the optional
terminating action currently specified in this AD. However, the
proposed compliance time for accomplishment of that action is
sufficiently long so that prior notice and time for public comment will
be practicable.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-245-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
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
[[Page 65525]]
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further
that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is
determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final
regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.
A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, 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 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
95-26-06 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9464. Docket 95-NM-245-AD.
Applicability: Model MD-11 series airplanes, manufacturer's
fuselage numbers 0447 through 0593 inclusive, 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 use the authority
provided in paragraph (e) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent degradation of the automatic landing system during
flight due to improper wiring of the fuel system control panel
(FSCP), accomplish the following:
(a) Within 15 days after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish the requirements of either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of
this AD.
(1) Revise the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM), page 5-4, Flight Guidance, Automatic Landing
Section, to include the following statement. This may be
accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
``Autoland operation below 100 feet above ground level (AGL) is
prohibited. The autopilot must be disconnected prior to descent
below 100 feet AGL.''
(2) Open and collar the control circuit breaker, B1-458, of the
left fuel dump valve, in accordance with Phase 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
MD11-28A081, dated November 30, 1995.
Note 2: McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A081,
dated November 30, 1995, references Honeywell Service Bulletin
4059024-28-2, dated November 22, 1995, for specific service
instructions.
(b) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform
a visual inspection to determine if the wiring is mis-wired in the
fuel system control panel (FSCP), part number 4059024-901, in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-
28A081, dated November 30, 1995.
(1) If the FSCP wiring is not mis-wired (the measured resistance
between connector pins J1-T and J3-K is more than 100 ohms),
accomplish the requirements of either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or
(b)(1)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Continue to operate the airplane provided that the actions
specified in either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) have been
accomplished; or
(ii) Prior to further flight, re-identify the FSCP, part number
4059024-901, to incorporate modification letter ``A'' in the FSCP
identification plate, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin MD11-28A081, dated November 30, 1995. This re-
identification constitutes terminating action for the requirements
of this AD. [The AFM revision as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of
this AD, if previously accomplished, may be removed following this
re-identification action.]
(2) If the FSCP wiring is mis-wired (the measured resistance
between connectors J1-T and J3-K is less than 100 ohms), accomplish
the requirements of either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this
AD.
(i) Continue to operate the airplane provided that the actions
specified in either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) have been
accomplished; or
(ii) Prior to further flight, either modify the FSCP, part
number 4059024-901; or replace the FSCP, part number 4059024-901,
with an FSCP having part number 4059024-901 and modification letter
``A'' in the FSCP identification plate; in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas Service Bulletin MD11-28A081, dated November 30, 1995. This
modification or replacement constitutes terminating action for the
requirements of this AD. [The AFM revision as specified in paragraph
(a)(1) of this AD, if accomplished previously, may be removed
following this modification/replacement.]
(c) Within 10 days after accomplishing the visual inspection
required by paragraph (b) of this AD, submit a report of the
inspection results (both positive and negative findings) to the
Manager, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 3690 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712; telephone (310) 627-5262; fax (310) 627-5210,
Attention: Ray Vakili, ANM-140L. Information collection requirements
contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(d) Installation of an FSCP having part number 4059024-901 and
modification letter ``A'' in the FSCP identification plate, in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD11-28A081,
dated November 30, 1995, constitutes terminating action for the
requirements of this AD.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through
an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add
comments and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(f) 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.
(g) The actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A081, dated November 30, 1995.
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from McDonnel Douglas Corporation, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846. Attention:
Technical Publications Business Administration, Department C1-L51
(2-60). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on January 4, 1996.
[[Page 65526]]
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 13, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30962 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30961 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100) Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65521-65523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30961]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-238-AD; Amendment 39-9465; AD 95-26-07]
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100) Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is applicable to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 series airplanes.
This action requires revising the Limitations Section of the Airplane
Flight Manual to provide the flight crew with procedures to check the
travel range of the aileron. This action also requires inspection for
damage of the shear pins of the aileron flutter damper and aileron
hinge fittings, and various follow-on actions. This amendment is
prompted by reports of failure of shear pins in the aileron flutter
damper. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent damage
to the aileron hinge fittings due to failed shear pins, which
subsequently could cause reduced controllability of the airplane.
DATES: Effective January 4, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 4, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before February 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-238-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from
Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station
Centre-ville, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada. This information may be examined
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, New York Aircraft Certification
Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor,
Valley Stream, New York; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Franco Pieri, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANE-172, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor,
Valley Stream, New York 11581; telephone (516) 256-7526; fax (516) 568-
2716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Transport Canada Aviation, which is the
airworthiness authority for Canada, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100) series airplanes. Transport Canada Aviation
advises that it has received reports indicating that the shear pins of
the aileron flutter damper had failed. Investigation revealed that the
shear pins had sheared off and migrated out, which subsequently damaged
the aileron hinge fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Bombardier has issued Canadair Regional Jet Alert Service Bulletin
S.B. A601R-27-058, Revision ``A,'' dated September 8, 1995, which
describes procedures for:
1. A visual inspection to detect damage of the shear link, the
shear pin, and the aileron attachment fitting;
2. Repair of the aileron attachment fitting, if necessary;
3. For airplanes on which any damaged shear pin is found, removal
of the aileron flutter dampers, the shear links, the pivots, and the
attaching hardware;
4. For certain airplanes on which no damaged shear pin is found,
repetitive visual inspections to detect damage of the shear link, the
shear pin, and the aileron attachment fitting until the aileron flutter
dampers are removed.
[[Page 65522]]
Transport Canada Aviation classified the alert service bulletin as
mandatory, and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-95-14, dated
September 11, 1995, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of
these airplanes in Canada.
This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, Transport Canada Aviation has kept
the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined
the findings of Transport Canada Aviation, reviewed all available
information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of
this type design that are certificated for operation in the United
States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent damage to the
aileron hinge fittings due to the failure of the shear pins, which
could cause subsequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD
requires revising the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane
Flight Manual to provide the flight crew with procedures to check the
travel range of the aileron prior to the first flight of the day. Such
checks are necessary to verify proper operation of the aileron control
system. The FAA has determined that these checks may be properly
performed by pilots because the checks do not require the use of tools,
precision measuring equipment, training, pilot logbook endorsements, or
the use of reference to technical data that are not contained in the
body of the AD.
This AD also requires a visual inspection to detect damage of the
shear link, the shear pin, and the aileron attachment fitting; and
repair of the aileron attachment fitting, if necessary. This AD also
requires removal of the aileron flutter dampers, the shear links, the
pivots, and the attaching hardware for airplanes on which any damage to
the shear pin is detected. For certain airplanes on which no damaged
shear pin is found, this AD provides for accomplishment of the visual
inspections on a repetitive basis until the aileron flutter dampers are
removed. These actions are required to be accomplished in accordance
with the alert service bulletin described previously.
Operators should note that, although the relevant Transport Canada
Aviation airworthiness directive requires the visual inspection of all
aileron flutter damper shear pins and aileron hinge fittings within 7
calendar days or at the next scheduled shear pin replacement, this AD
requires that inspection to be performed within 30 days. The FAA has
determined that an interval of 30 days will address the identified
unsafe condition in a timely manner. In recent communications with
Transport Canada Aviation and the manufacturer, the FAA finds that the
unsafe condition was not as urgent as it initially appeared to be. In
developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA
considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but also the
average utilization of the affected fleet and the time necessary to
perform the required actions (10 work hours). In light of all these
factors, the FAA finds 30 days to be an appropriate compliance time for
initiating the required actions in that it represents the maximum
interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to
operate without compromising safety.
This is considered to be interim action. Once a terminating
modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA may
consider additional rulemaking.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-238-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
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.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further
that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is
determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final
regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.
A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, 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:
[[Page 65523]]
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
95-26-07 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39-9465.
Docket 95-NM-238-AD.
Applicability: Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100)
series airplanes, serial numbers 7003 through 7079 inclusive;
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 use the authority
provided in paragraph (e) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent damage to the aileron hinge fittings due to failure
of the shear pins, which could cause subsequent reduced
controllability of the airplane; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM) to include the following. This may be accomplished by
inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
``Before engine start, prior to the first flight of each day,
the flight crew or certificated maintenance personnel shall perform
a check of the travel range of the aileron as follows:
Aileron--Check travel range (to approx \1/2\ travel) using each
hydraulic system in turn, with the other hydraulic systems
depressurized.''
Note 2: This AFM revision may also be accomplished by inserting
a copy of Temporary Revision RJ/45, dated September 7, 1995, in the
AFM. When this temporary revision has been incorporated into general
revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the
AFM, provided the information contained in the general revisions is
identical to that specified in Temporary Revision RJ/45.
Note 3: Operators should note that operation of the aircraft
remains restricted to the altitude and airspeed limits currently
specified in the FAA-approved AFM, Revision 34, Chapter 5, Abnormal
Procedures, Section 13, Hydraulic Power, Paragraphs ``A'' through
``C'' and ``M'' through ``O.''
(b) Perform a visual inspection to detect damage of the shear
link, the shear pin, and the aileron attachment fitting, in
accordance with Canadair Regional Jet Alert Service Bulletin S.B.
A601R-27-058, Revision `A,' dated September 8, 1995, and at the time
specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes having serial numbers 7003 through 7054
inclusive: Inspect at the next scheduled shear pin replacement, but
no later than 30 days after the effective date of the AD.
(2) For airplanes having serial numbers 7055 through 7079
inclusive: Inspect at the next scheduled shear pin replacement, but
no later than 400 flight hours after the effective date of the AD.
(c) If no shear pin is found to be damaged during the inspection
required by paragraph (b) of this AD, accomplish the requirements of
either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2), as applicable, at the times
specified:
(1) For airplanes having serial numbers 7003 through 7054
inclusive: At the next scheduled shear pin replacement, but no later
than 400 flight hours after accomplishing the inspection specified
in paragraph (b) of this AD, remove the aileron flutter dampers,
shear link, and pivot, in accordance with Canadair Regional Jet
Alert Service Bulletin S.B. A601R-27-058, Revision `A,' dated
September 8, 1995. Following removal of the flutter dampers, the
shear pin replacement in accordance with the FAA-approved
maintenance program is not required.
(2) For airplanes having serial numbers 7055 through 7079
inclusive: Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (b) of this
AD at intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours. At the next
scheduled shear pin replacement, but no later than 1,500 landings
after accomplishing the initial inspection specified in paragraph
(b) of this AD, remove the aileron flutter dampers, shear link, and
pivot, in accordance with Canadair Regional Jet Alert Service
Bulletin S.B. A601R-27-058, Revision `A,' dated September 8, 1995.
Following removal of the flutter dampers, the shear pin replacement
in accordance with the FAA-approved maintenance program is not
required.
(d) If any shear pin is found to be damaged during the
inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, prior to further
flight, remove the aileron flutter dampers, shear link, and pivot,
in accordance with Canadair Regional Jet Alert Service Bulletin S.B.
A601R-27-058, Revision `A,' dated September 8, 1995. Following
removal of the flutter dampers, shear pin replacement in accordance
with the FAA-approved maintenance program is not required.
(e) If any aileron hinge fitting is found to be damaged during
the inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, prior to
further flight, repair in accordance with Canadair Regional Jet
Alert Service Bulletin S.B. A601R-27-058, Revision `A,' dated
September 8, 1995.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, New York ACO.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the New York ACO.
(g) 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.
(h) The inspections, removal, and repair shall be done in
accordance with Canadair Regional Jet Alert Service Bulletin S.B.
A601R-27-058, Revision `A,' dated September 8, 1995. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Bombardier, Inc., Canadair,
Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centreville, Quebec H3C 3G9,
Canada. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York;
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(i) This amendment becomes effective on January 4, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 13, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30961 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30940 Communications Disclaimer Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30940]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
[Notice 1995-24]
11 CFR Part 110
Communications Disclaimer Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On Oct. 5, 1995 (60 FR 52069), the Commission published the
text of revised regulations governing disclaimers on campaign
communications. On Nov. 29, 1995, the Commission published a correction
to the preamble of the revised regulations. (60 FR 61199) 11 CFR Part
110. These regulations implement a provision of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. The Commission announces that these
rules are effective as of December 20, 1995.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Susan E. Propper, Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Rita A. Reimer,
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 219-3690 or toll free
(800) 424-9530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 438(d) of Title 2, United States
Code, requires that any rule or regulation prescribed by the Commission
to implement Title 2 of the United States Code be transmitted to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate
thirty legislative days prior to final promulgation. The revisions to
11 CFR Part 110 were transmitted to Congress on Oct. 2, 1995. Thirty
legislative days expired in the Senate on Nov. 28, 1995, and in the
House of Representatives on Dec. 5, 1995.
The Commission subsequently published a corrections notice to the
preamble of these rules. The Speaker of the House of Representatives
and the President of the Senate were notified of the correction notice
on Nov. 27, 1995. The correction did not affect the text of the rules.
The rules address the circumstances under which a disclaimer must
be included on campaign communications, as well as what information
must be included in the disclaimer. The correction notice deleted a
potentially misleading reference to phone bank activity that had
inadvertently been included in the Explanation and Justification to the
revised rules.
Announcement of Effective Date: 11 CFR 110.11, as published at 60
FR 52069, is effective as of December 20, 1995.
Dated: December 15, 1995.
Lee Ann Elliot,
Vice Chairman, Federal Election Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-30940 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30938 Direct Broadcast Satellite Service
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65587-65597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30938]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 100
[IB Docket No. 95-168; PP Docket No. 93-253; FCC 95-507]
Direct Broadcast Satellite Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 14, 1995, the Federal Communications Commission
adopted a Report and Order in which it adopted a number of new rules
and policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') service,
including the use of competitive bidding to resolve mutually exclusive
applications for DBS resources. As part of its decision in Advanced
Communications Corporation, FCC 95-428 (released October 18, 1995), the
Commission reclaimed for the public 51 channels of DBS spectrum at two
orbital locations (27 channels at 110 deg. W.L. and 24 channels at
148 deg. W.L.) that had previously been assigned to Advanced
Communications Corporation (``ACC''). The Commission adopts rules and
policies in the DBS service in order to update the current ``interim''
rules and to reassign, through a competitive bidding process, channels
at orbital locations previously assigned to ACC.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Hutchings or Bill Wiltshire,
International Bureau, (202) 418-0420; or Diane Conley, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0660.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This summarizes the Commission's Report and
Order in IB Docket No. 95-168; PP Docket No. 93-253; FCC 95-507,
adopted on December 14, 1995, and released on December 15, 1995. The
complete text of this Report and Order (``Order'') is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington, D.C., and
also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street NW.,
Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037. This Order contains new or modified
information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(``PRA''), Pub. L. 104-13, which were proposed in the NPRM and
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
approval. The Commission received no comments on the proposed
information collections, and therefore adopts them as originally
proposed. The effective date of the new and modified rules being
adopted falls after the deadline for OMB action under the PRA.
Synopsis of the Report and Order
I. Introduction
1. Over six years ago, in Continental Satellite Corporation, 4 FCC
Rcd 6292 (1989), the Commission stated that existing DBS permittees
would have first right to additional channel assignments upon surrender
or cancellation of a DBS construction permit. The Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``NPRM'') in this proceeding, 60 FR 55822 (Nov. 3, 1995),
tentatively concluded that this reassignment policy no longer serves
the public interest, and accordingly proposed to use competitive
bidding when the Commission has received mutually exclusive
applications for reassignment of such DBS resources. Specifically, the
NPRM proposed to auction two large blocks of channels that are
currently available at two orbital locations. In addition, the NPRM
proposed new service rules that would: (1) impose performance criteria
intended to ensure that DBS resources are utilized in a timely manner;
(2) guard against potential anticompetitive conduct by DBS providers;
and (3) ensure timely DBS service to Alaska and Hawaii. The NPRM also
requested comment on our existing policy governing the extent to which
DBS resources may be put to alternative uses.
2. The Commission concludes that the public interest is no longer
served by the pro rata methodology established in Continental for
reassigning reclaimed DBS channels. Accordingly, the Commission adopts
new rules for reassigning DBS resources. In the Order, the Commission
finds that it has the statutory authority to auction DBS construction
permits if the Commission receives mutually exclusive applications, and
that the objectives of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 47
U.S.C. 309(j), would be served by doing so. Specifically, under the
Order the Commission will auction two DBS construction permits: one for
all 28 channels now available at the 110 deg. W.L. orbital location (27
channels from ACC plus 1 channel that was never assigned), and another
for all 24 channels now available at the 148 deg. W.L. orbital
location. The NPRM proposed to employ an oral outcry auction to award
construction permits for these channel blocks. The Commission has
instead determined that these two permits should be awarded through a
sequential multiple round electronic auction. Other auction designs may
be used for future DBS auctions.
[[Page 65588]]
3. The Commission also adopts three new service rules and revises
an existing policy. First, a person receiving a new or additional DBS
construction permit will be required to complete construction of its
first satellite within four years of receiving its permit, and to
complete all satellites in its DBS system within six years. Second, new
permittees will be required to provide DBS service to Alaska and Hawaii
from any orbital location where such service is technically feasible,
and existing permittees will be required to provide such service from
either or both of their assigned orbital locations in order to retain
their channel assignments at western orbital locations. Third, the term
for non-broadcast DBS licenses will be lengthened from five years to
ten years, to encourage investment and innovation in the service and to
better match the useful life of DBS satellites. In addition, the
existing policy restricting non-DBS use of DBS resources will be
restated in terms of capacity rather than time in order to allow DBS
licensees to configure their systems more efficiently. The Commission
believes that these rules are well designed to spur swift development
of DBS spectrum resources to the benefit of the American public.
II. Proposed Service Rules
A. Performance Objectives
4. The Commission finds that combining existing due diligence
requirements with additional milestones for construction and operation
of DBS systems by new permittees will prevent unnecessary delays in the
commencement of service. Accordingly, the Commission adopts, as
proposed in the NPRM, two additional performance criteria for those
receiving DBS construction permits after the effective date of the
proposed rule: (1) completion of construction of the first satellite in
a DBS system within four years of authorization; and (2) launch and
operation of all satellites in a DBS system within six years of
authorization.
B. Use of DBS Capacity
5. At present, Commission policy requires each DBS licensee to
begin DBS operations before the end of its first five-year license
term, but allows otherwise unrestricted use during that term. After
expiration of the first term, a DBS operator may continue to provide
non-DBS service only on those transponders on which it also provides
DBS service, and only up to half of the use of each transponder each
day. The Commission finds that capacity-based restrictions would allow
DBS permittees and licensees more flexibility in how they configure
their satellites as a matter of technical efficiency in complying with
the limitations we have imposed. Accordingly, the Order restates
existing restrictions on the use of DBS resources as a function of
capacity rather than time, but otherwise retains the existing use
policy. Thus, the new policy will be that a DBS licensee must begin DBS
operations within five years of receipt of its license, but may
otherwise make unrestricted use of the spectrum during that time. After
that five-year period, such a licensee may continue to provide non-DBS
service so long as at least half of its total capacity at a given
orbital location is used for DBS service.
6. The NPRM noted the possibility that, as a result of a separate
proceeding, operators using DBS channels and orbital locations may be
permitted to provide both domestic and international service. See
Amendment to the Commission's Regulatory Policies Governing Domestic
Fixed Satellites and Separate International Satellite Systems, Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 95-146, para. 38 (released April 25,
1995)(``Transborder/Separate Systems''), 60 FR 24817 (May 10, 1995).
The Commission notes that the construction permits available at auction
currently authorize only DBS service to the United States, and finds
that the potential for international DBS service is no basis for
delaying the auction pending resolution of international satellite
service issues in the Transborder/Separate Systems proceeding.
C. Rules and Policies Designed to Promote Competition
1. Spectrum Aggregation Limitations. 7. The NPRM proposed certain
rules intended to prevent strategic use of DBS resources for
anticompetitive purposes and also requested comment on whether
additional steps were necessary to achieve the desired goal of
fostering competition among multichannel video programming distributors
(``MVPDs''), such as DBS and cable systems. Two of the rules proposed
were structural, in that they placed limits on the number of full-CONUS
DBS channels a person could hold or use. The NPRM also proposed rules
aimed at preventing specific types of potentially anticompetitive
conduct, and requested comment on the degree to which existing rules
might address those same concerns.
8. The Commission rejects both of the spectrum caps proposed in the
NPRM, and instead adopts a one-time spectrum limitation applicable to
the upcoming auction. Under this one-time auction rule, a party
currently holding an attributable interest in full-CONUS channels at
one location may bid at auction for channels currently available at the
110 deg. location, but if successful must divest its existing full-
CONUS channels at any other location within twelve months. The
Commission finds that the rule is necessary given the scarcity of full-
CONUS DBS spectrum and the impact that concentration of this spectrum
into the hands of any single provider might have on the overall MVPD
market. The resulting intra-DBS competition will best serve the public
interest by ensuring a level of rivalry between and among DBS firms and
other MVPDs that should constrain any potential there might be for
strategic anticompetitive conduct. The Commission also finds that
twelve months should be sufficient to allow an orderly divestiture, if
necessary, and strikes a proper balance between the time necessary for
negotiation and the desire to ensure that spectrum not remain idle.
9. For purposes of implementing the spectrum aggregation limitation
adopted in the Order, the Commission will only consider three orbital
locations--101 deg., 110 deg., and 119 deg.--to be capable of full-
CONUS service. A fourth orbital location, at 61.5o W.L, should not be
deemed to be capable of delivering full-CONUS service at this time
since an operator serving customers in the western United States from
that location would face interference from tall objects that an
operator from the other three locations would not face due to their
better look angles, and therefore would be at a qualitative
disadvantage in attracting customers.
10. In applying the auction spectrum rule adopted in the Order,
interests will be attributed to their holders and deemed cognizable
under criteria similar to those used in the context of the broadcast,
newspaper and cable television cross ownership rules. The rules adopted
in the Order attribute the following interests: (1) any voting interest
of five percent or more; (2) any general partnership interest and
direct ownership interest; (3) any limited partnership interest, unless
the limited partnership agreement provides for insulation of the
limited partner's interest and the limited partner in fact is insulated
from and has no material involvement, either directly or indirectly, in
the management or operation of the DBS activities of the partnership;
and (4) officers and directors. As with the broadcast rules, the
attribution threshold for institutional investors is ten percent, and a
multiplier will be used to
[[Page 65589]]
calculate interests held through successive and multiple layers of
ownership.
2. Conduct Rules. 11. In addition to the structural solutions
designed to promote competition by preventing the potential for undue
concentration of DBS and MVPD resources, the NPRM also proposed conduct
limitations on the use of DBS resources in order to address a number of
specific forms of potential anticompetitive behavior. In the Order, the
Commission finds that the one-time auction rule described above will
significantly promote rivalry among DBS systems and encourage the
development of competition in markets for the delivery of video
programming. The Order states that there is little direct evidence of
anticompetitive behavior specific to the DBS context. Accordingly, the
Commission has decided to rely upon the competitive effect of its one-
time spectrum rule to prevent the range of anticompetitive conduct
discussed in the NPRM, and thus refrains from adopting conduct rules at
this stage in the development of the DBS industry.
12. In view of the market structure set in motion by the Order's
one-time spectrum rule, the Commission does not find it necessary to
adopt rules prohibiting DBS services from being offered as
``ancillary'' to cable services. Thus, there is no reason to extend to
all non-DBS MVPDs the restrictions imposed in the DBS construction
permit issued to Tempo Satellite, Inc., or to maintain those
restrictions with respect to Tempo. Similarly, the Commission finds no
compelling need at this time for adopting rules designed to ensure that
a cable-affiliated DBS operator will compete against other DBS
providers for subscribers in cabled areas, or for determining that all
joint marketing arrangements between DBS operators and other MVPDs will
a fortiori reduce competition. Further, the Commission declines to
amend the existing program access and carriage rules to address
specific conduct by DBS operators. The Order states that there is no
evidence in this record that exclusive agreements currently pose any
anticompetitive concern or will do so in the future.
13. The NPRM identified as another area of concern program access
issues related to the development of systems such as TCI's proposed
``Headend in the Sky'' (``HITS'') service for satellite delivery of
programming to terrestrial MVPD systems. It appears that a HITS-like
service that provides most of the available programming, and provides
it in a digital format that could be passed through to subscribers,
could offer substantial efficiencies for many MVPDs. The benefits of
this service cannot materialize if competing DBS operators are unable
to provide such service because, for example, programmers refuse to
authorize MVPDs to receive programming services from the competing
operator's DBS satellite. However, the Commission has no evidence
before it of firms presently supplying HITS-like service, and the
actual characteristics of such a service remain unclear. Moreover,
resolution of the issues surrounding such a service is not necessary to
the proceeding at hand. Accordingly, the Commission has decided that it
would be imprudent to consider rules governing HITS service absent a
better understanding of the nature of the service.
Other Concerns
14. The NPRM observed that in the Advanced Communications
Corporation proceeding, commenters raised a number of other concerns
about potential strategic conduct that could arise from cable-
affiliated ownership of full-CONUS DBS spectrum. Those commenters
argued that cable-affiliated ownership of full-CONUS DBS spectrum
should be prohibited, or in the alternative, that several remedial
conditions should be imposed. The NPRM sought comment on the extent to
which those and related concerns are implicated by the proposed auction
of DBS construction permits, and if so, whether additional DBS service
rules might be appropriate to address those concerns. For the time
being, the Commission has decided to rely upon the one-time auction
spectrum limitation, the rivalry that rule should promote throughout
the MVPD market, and the Commission's ongoing ability to monitor
developments in the DBS and MVPD markets through its Title III
authority, as adequate restraints on anticompetitive conduct. The
Commission remains committed to fostering a vibrant DBS service and
recognizes that periodic reviews will be necessary to ensure that the
benefits of rivalry are available to the public. It intends to keep a
watchful eye on developments in the service to ensure that DBS systems
have an opportunity to develop into truly competitive MVPDs.
East/West Paired Assignments
15. The NPRM tentatively concluded that progress in the DBS service
has rendered unnecessary the Continental policy of assigning DBS
channels only in east/west pairs. The commenters supported this
conclusion, and accordingly the Commission will no longer require DBS
permittees and licensees to retain their assigned channels in east/west
pairs.
D. Service to Alaska and Hawaii
16. The Commission adopts the rules proposed in the NPRM to: (1)
require that all new permittees must provide service to Alaska and
Hawaii if such service is technically feasible from their orbital
locations; and (2) condition the retention of channels assigned to
current permittees at western orbital locations on provision of such
service, from either or both of their assigned orbital locations. These
rules should help achieve the important goal of bringing service to
underserved regions of the United States. The Commission declined the
proposal of some commenters that the first rule be applied to existing
as well as new permittees. The Commission notes that service to Alaska
and Hawaii has already been shown to be feasible from all but the
101 deg.W.L. and 61.5 deg.W.L. orbital locations, and that any party
acquiring channels at those two locations that desires not to provide
service to Alaska or Hawaii will bear the burden of showing that such
service is not feasible as a technical matter, or that while
technically feasible such service would require so many compromises in
satellite design and operation as to make it economically unreasonable.
E. License Term
17. The Commission adopts the NPRM's proposal to increase the term
of a non-broadcast DBS license from 5 years to 10 years, the maximum
allowed under the Communications Act, which better reflects the useful
life of a DBS satellite, is consistent with the current proposal for
extending the term of satellite licenses in other services, and should
encourage investment and innovation in the DBS service.
III. Adoption of a New Methodology for Reassigning DBS Resources
18. Over six years ago, in the Continental decision, the Commission
stated that existing DBS permittees would have first right to
additional channel assignments upon surrender or cancellation of a DBS
construction permit. The NPRM tentatively concluded that this
reassignment policy, adopted in an era before Congress explicitly
authorized the Commission's use of auctions and well before any DBS
system actually went into operation, no longer serves the public
interest, and therefore should be abandoned.
19. After reviewing the comments received in response to the NPRM,
the Commission remains convinced that the pro rata distribution of
reclaimed
[[Page 65590]]
channels to existing permittees no longer serves the public interest.
The historic policy of assigning a relatively small number of channels
to each permittee was based upon a conception of DBS service that has
not been put into practice. Instead, the service has experienced a move
toward channel consolidation, an understandable trend given that DBS
systems must compete in the MVPD market with cable systems that are
promising a 500-channel service in the future. Under Continental, the
channels available for reassignment would be divided pro rata to assign
five pairs of channels at two orbital locations to each of six
permittees. The result would be a piecemeal assignment of valuable
spectrum, requiring the permittees to negotiate either joint operations
or channel swaps. The process necessary in either case is often a time
consuming one that is not always successful, which is further
complicated by the time required for Commission consideration and
approval of the resulting transactions. There is also no guarantee that
the permittees eligible for this distribution value the channels most
highly and can put them to use most efficiently.
20. By contrast, competitive bidding procedures are specifically
designed and intended to assign scarce resources to those who value
them most highly and can make the most efficient use of them. By
offering the available channels in two large blocks, the Commission
obviates the need for reaggregation and allows the auction winners to
proceed directly to acquisition or construction of satellites and
system operation of their systems. Since the Commission intends to hold
an auction in January 1996, it concludes that an auction method is
better suited to achieving expedited service from the channels
available than is the existing policy under Continental. In addition,
the Commission concludes that since it has determined that the public
interest supports a change in its regulatory approach, it has full
authority to modify existing DBS permits through notice and comment
rulemaking, even if doing so frustrates the expectations of existing
permittees.
21. All potential auction participants should be aware that the
decision cancelling ACC's construction permit is currently on appeal,
and that others may seek judicial review of this Order as well. In the
unlikely event that a court either overturns the Advanced order and
ACC's permit with its associated orbital/channel authorizations is
ultimately reinstated, or overturns this rulemaking and the Continental
reassignment methodology is ultimately maintained, the Commission would
rescind any permit awarded through the auction process and move with
all deliberate speed to refund money paid up to that point.
Participants in the auction are hereby put on notice of this
possibility, and should be willing to facilitate that process if it
becomes necessary.
IV. Adoption of Rules for Auctioning DBS Permits
A. Authority to Conduct Auctions
The Commission has authority under Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j), to employ auctions to choose
among mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses or
construction permits where the principal use of the spectrum is likely
to involve the licensee receiving compensation from subscribers. Having
reviewed the comments received in response to the NPRM in this
proceeding, the Commission concludes that it has the authority under
Section 309(j) to award DBS construction permits for the spectrum
reclaimed from ACC, as well as other available spectrum, by means of
competitive bidding.
Given that both DBS licensees now providing service to the public
operate on a subscription basis, and all other permittees planning to
initiate service in the near future also plan to offer subscription-
based service, the Commission believes that it is a reasonable
assumption that a majority of the use of DBS spectrum is likely to
involve the licensee receiving compensation from subscribers, and the
``principal use'' requirement of the statute is therefore satisfied. In
light of current licensees' subscription-based operations, and all
other permittees' plans for such operations, the Commission disagrees
with the claim made by one commenter that competitive bidding will
force DBS operators to offer all-subscription service.
The Commission also disagrees with the argument made by another
commenter that construction permits awarded for the channels reclaimed
from ACC are not initial. When channels are reclaimed from existing
permittees, the construction permits for them are cancelled and cannot
be modified. Thus, any construction permits awarded for reclaimed
channels will be ``initial'' under Section 309(j) because they will be
new permits for the channels in question.
With respect to the requirement of mutual exclusivity, the
Commission does not accept the claim that it could have avoided mutual
exclusivity by applying the spectrum reassignment policy in
Continental. The Commission has determined that this policy would delay
the development of DBS service and would squander valuable spectrum,
and thus would not be in the public interest. The Commission also notes
that where it has scheduled an auction and it turns out that only one
application is filed for a particular construction permit, the auction
will be cancelled and the application will be processed. In addition,
the Commission will consider mutual exclusivity to exist only when the
number of DBS channels sought at a given orbital location exceeds the
number available there.
The Commission further concludes that the use of competitive
bidding to assign DBS spectrum will promote the statutory objectives of
the rapid deployment of service and the efficient use of spectrum more
effectively than any other spectrum assignment method. An auction is
likely to promote the rapid deployment of service because those parties
that are in the best position to deploy technologies and services are
also likely to be the highest bidders. In addition, abandonment of the
Commission's Continental policy opens the DBS industry to a wide range
of potential new entrants and thus is consistent with the statutory
objective of disseminating licenses among a wide variety of licensees.
The possibility that auction costs will be passed on to consumers does
not mean, as certain commenters assert, that auctions will not serve
the statutory objective of recovering a portion of the value of DBS
spectrum for the public. DBS operators may also pass on other costs to
consumers. Moreover, auction winners will be constrained from charging
rates higher than those of competitors who have not paid for spectrum.
Finally, the auctioning of DBS channels will ensure that the ultimate
holder of the channels has paid market value to the U.S. Treasury and
thus will serve the statutory goal of avoiding unjust enrichment. The
Commission will therefore award construction permits for the channels
available at 110 deg. and 148 deg., as well as DBS construction permits
that become available in the future, by means of competitive bidding.
B. Competitive Bidding Design
The Commission will auction one construction permit for the block
of 28 channels at 110 deg. and one construction permit for the block of
24 channels at 148 deg.. The Commission believes that designating two
permits for these channels will best serve the public interest and the
objectives of Section 309(j)(4)(B), 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(4)(B),
[[Page 65591]]
especially the promotion of investment in and rapid deployment of the
DBS service. The construction permits available for auction include
authority to transmit pursuant to allocations in accordance with the
ITU feeder link plan allocating frequencies for establishing uplinks
and downlinks. The Commission recognizes that there may be legitimate
reasons for auctioning spectrum in smaller blocks; therefore, in the
future, the Commission may auction DBS spectrum either channel by
channel or in small blocks.
The Commission proposed in the NPRM to award the construction
permits for the channels available at 110 deg. and 148 deg. by means of
an oral outcry auction. However, the Commission is persuaded by the
comments submitted that the auction for these channels should have more
structure. The Commission concludes that a sequential multiple round
electronic auction would be the best way of providing such structure.
The primary benefit of additional structure is the reduced risk of
bidders making errors in submitting bids, and bid submission errors are
far less likely with electronic bidding than in a traditional oral
auction. Multiple round electronic bidding also provides bidders more
time to analyze previous bids, confer with decision makers, and refine
their bidding strategy than a continuous oral auction. Multiple round
electronic bidding with the activity rule adopted by the Commission
also provides bidders with more information about other bidders'
valuations. Finally, given the Commission's experience with electronic
auctions, such an auction is likely to be easier for the Commission to
implement.
In anticipation of a rapid auction pace, the Commission will
provide for electronic bidding at an FCC auction site. The Commission
does not anticipate allowing telephone bids and remote electronic
bidding, but the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will announce by
Public Notice whether such bidding will be permitted. In the event that
telephone bids and remote electronic bidding are not allowed, all
bidders will be required to have an authorized bidding representative
at the auction site. The channels at 110 deg. and 148 deg. will be
auctioned separately since no commenter has made the case that there is
significant interdependence between the channels available at these two
orbital locations. The Commission may auction one channel block
immediately after the other, but also reserves the discretion to hold
two separate auctions for the two blocks.
Although the Commission will not use simultaneous multiple round
bidding, oral outcry bidding, sealed bidding, or a combined sealed bid-
oral outcry auction to award construction permits for the spectrum
available at 110 deg. and 148 deg., such auction designs could be
suitable for DBS under certain circumstances. The Commission therefore
adopts rules providing for these auction designs, and reserves the
discretion to employ such auction designs for DBS in the future. The
Commission also delegates to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau the
authority to implement and modify auction procedures--including the
general design and timing of an auction, the number of authorizations
to be offered in any one auction, the manner of submitting bids, and
procedures such as minimum opening bids and bid increments, activity
and stopping rules, and application and payment requirements--and to
announce such procedures by Public Notice.
C. Bidding Procedures
Sequencing. The 28 channels available at 110 deg. will be auctioned
first. The sequence of future DBS auctions will be determined in
keeping with the Commission's general finding that the highest value
licenses should be auctioned first because the greater the value of the
licenses, the greater the cost to the public of delaying licensing. See
Second Report and Order, PP Docket No. 93-253, 59 FR 22980 (May 4,
1994). In the event that the Commission needs to assign separate blocks
of channels that it believes to be interdependent, it may choose to
utilize a simultaneous multiple round auction.
Bid Increments and Tie Bids. The Commission reserves the discretion
to establish, raise and lower minimum bid increments in the course of
DBS auctions. The Commission anticipates using larger percentage
minimum bid increments early in the auction and reducing the minimum
increment percentage as bidding activity falls. The Commission also
reserves the discretion to establish and change maximum bid increments
in the course of DBS auctions. Where a tie bid occurs, the high bidder
will be determined by the order in which the bids were received by the
Commission.
Minimum Opening Bid. The Commission believes that it would be
useful to have a minimum opening bid for the channels at 110 deg. to
help move the auction along and to increase the likelihood that the
public receives fair market value for the spectrum. A minimum opening
bid therefore will be established for the channels available at
110 deg., the amount of which will be announced by Public Notice. The
amount of this minimum opening bid will be determined using all
available information and taking into consideration the uncertainty as
to the value of the spectrum. No commenter has suggested a minimum
opening bid for the channels available at 148 deg., and it appears that
the value of these channels is substantially lower than the value of
the channels at 110 deg.. The Commission therefore will not set a
minimum opening bid for the channels at 148 deg.. The Commission also
reserves discretion to decide whether to set minimum opening bids for
individual auctions in the future as circumstances warrant.
Activity Rules. A bidder must be active in each round of the
auction or use an activity rule waiver. To be active in the current
round, a bidder must submit an acceptable bid in the current round or
have the high bid from the previous round. Bidders will be provided
with five activity rule waivers that may be used in any round during
the course of the auction. A bidder who is not active in a round and
has no remaining activity rule waivers will no longer be eligible to
bid on the construction permit being auctioned.
If a bidder is not active in a round, a waiver will be applied
automatically. An automatic waiver applied in a round in which there
are no new valid bids will not keep the auction open. A proactive
activity rule waiver is a waiver invoked by a bidder during the bid
submission period. If a bidder submits a proactive waiver in a round in
which no other bidding activity occurs, the auction will remain open.
The Commission retains the discretion to issue additional waivers
during the course of an auction for circumstances beyond a bidder's
control or in the event of a bid withdrawal, as discussed below. The
Commission also retains the flexibility to adjust by Public Notice
prior to an auction the number of waivers permitted.
Stopping Rules. A stopping rule specifies when an auction is over.
The auction will close after one round passes in which no new valid
bids or proactive activity rule waivers are submitted. The Commission
retains the discretion, however, to keep the auction open even if no
new valid bids and no proactive waivers are submitted. In the event
that the Commission exercises this discretion, the effect will be the
same as if a bidder had submitted a proactive waiver.
[[Page 65592]]
D. Procedural and Payment Issues
Application Procedures, Permittee Qualifications, and Payment for
Construction Permits Awarded by Competitive Bidding. The Commission's
general procedural and payment rules for auctions will be applied to
the DBS service, along with certain modifications. Applicants for DBS
auctions will be required to file a short-form application, FCC Form
175, prior to the auction in which they wish to participate. Filing
deadlines will be announced by Public Notice. If administratively
feasible, electronic filing of FCC Form 175 for the auction of spectrum
available at 110 deg. and 148 deg. will be allowed; filing procedures
will be announced by Public Notice. For subsequent DBS auctions, the
Commission will also announce by Public Notice how such forms should be
filed.
As discussed below, every DBS auction participant will be required
to submit to the Commission an upfront payment prior to commencement of
the auction. In addition, every auction winner will be required to
submit an amount sufficient to bring its total deposit up to 20 percent
of its winning bid within 10 business days of the announcement of
winning bidders. Winning bidders will be required to file information
in conformance with Part 100 of the Commission's Rules within 30 days
of the announcement of winning bidders. Winning bidders must submit, as
part of this post-auction application process, a signed statement
describing their efforts to date and future plans to come into
compliance with any applicable spectrum limitations, if they are not
already in compliance.
After reviewing a winning bidder's information supplied in
conformance with Part 100 and determining that the bidder is qualified
to be a permittee, and after verifying receipt of the bidder's 20
percent down payment, the Commission will announce the application's
acceptance for filing, thus triggering the filing window for petitions
to deny. If the Commission dismisses or denies any and all petitions to
deny, the Commission will issue an announcement to this effect, and the
winning bidder will then have five (5) business days to submit the
balance of its winning bid. If the bidder does so, the permit will be
granted subject to a condition, if necessary, that the permittee come
into compliance with any applicable spectrum limitations within twelve
(12) months of the final grant. The permittee may come into compliance
with applicable spectrum caps by either surrendering to the Commission
its excess channels or filing an application that would result in
divestiture of the excess channels. If the bidder fails to submit the
balance of the winning bid or the permit is otherwise denied, the
Commission will assess a default payment as set forth below and re-
auction the permit.
Upfront Payment. The Commission's approach to upfront payments
varies from auction to auction depending on a balancing of the goal of
encouraging bidders to submit serious bids with the desire to simplify
the bidding process and minimize implementation costs imposed on
bidders. In the Second Report and Order in the Competitive Bidding
proceeding, the Commission outlined a rationale for setting upfront
payments at roughly five percent of the estimated value of a winning
bid. Second Report and Order, PP Docket No. 93-253, 59 FR 22980 (May 4,
1994). A year ago, Tempo would have paid ACC $45 million for its
channels at 110 deg. and 148 deg.. In view of the fact that MCI has
stated it would bid $175 million for the channels at 110 deg., and in
the absence of any specific expression of interest in bidding on the
channels at 148 deg., it seems clear that the channels at 110 deg. are
more valuable than those at 148 deg.. Moreover, the Commission strongly
believes that the value of the channels has increased over the past
year. These considerations lead the Commission to set an upfront
payment of $10 million for the channels at 110 deg. and $2 million for
the channels at 148 deg.. The figure of $10 million is well above five
percent of $45 million (it is actually 22.2 percent). This reflects a
balancing of the assumed increase in value of the spectrum with the
fact that the channels at 110 deg. and 148 deg. were included in the
Tempo-ACC arrangement.
The magnitude of the upfront payment also reflects the Commission's
concern that, if the upfront payment is too low, there is a risk of
encouraging insincere bidding. Moreover, a $10 million payment should
not be an excessive burden for bidders because it will not be held for
a significant amount of time. In addition, $10 million is the lowest of
the specific upfront payment suggestions in the comments. With respect
to procedures for collecting upfront payments, the Commission will
accept only wire transfers for the auction of the channels available at
110 deg. and 148 deg..
Bid Withdrawal, Default and Disqualification. Any bidder who
withdraws a high bid during an auction before the Commission declares
bidding closed will be required to reimburse the Commission in the
amount of the difference between its high bid and the amount of the
winning bid the next time the construction permit is offered by the
Commission, if this subsequent winning bid is lower than the withdrawn
bid. No withdrawal payment will be assessed if the subsequent winning
bid exceeds the withdrawn bid. To prevent multiple withdrawals by the
same party, the Commission will bar a bidder who withdraws a bid from
continued participation in the auction of the withdrawn construction
permit.
In the event of a bid withdrawal, the Commission will reoffer the
construction permit in the next round. The offer price will be the
highest price at or above which bids were made in previous rounds by
three or more bidders. The Commission may at its discretion reduce this
price in subsequent rounds if it receives no bids at this price. Prior
to restarting the auction, the Commission will also restore the
eligibility of all bidders who have not withdrawn. After a withdrawal
the Commission will also issue each eligible bidder one activity rule
waiver in addition to any remaining waivers to provide additional time
for bid preparation and to avoid accidental disqualification.
A default payment will be assessed if a winning bidder fails to pay
the full amount of its 20 percent down payment or the balance of its
winning bid in a timely manner, or is disqualified after the close of
an auction. The amount of this default payment will be equal to the
difference between the defaulting auction winner's ``winning'' bid and
the amount of the winning bid the next time the construction permit is
offered for auction by the Commission, if the latter bid is lower. In
addition, the defaulting auction winner will be required to submit a
payment of three (3) percent of the subsequent winning bid or three (3)
percent of its own ``winning'' bid, whichever is less. If withdrawal,
default or disqualification involves gross misconduct,
misrepresentation or bad faith by an applicant, the Commission retains
the option to declare the applicant and its principals ineligible to
bid in future auctions, or take any other action the Commission deems
necessary, including institution of proceedings to revoke any existing
licenses held by the applicant.
E. Regulatory Safeguards
Transfer Disclosure Provisions. In order to accumulate data to
evaluate whether DBS authorizations are being issued for bids that fall
short of market value, the Commission will require any entity that
acquires a DBS license through competitive bidding and seeks
[[Page 65593]]
to transfer that license within six years of the initial license grant,
to file, together with its application for FCC consent to the transfer,
the associated contracts for sale, option agreements, management
agreements, or other documents disclosing the total consideration
received in return for the transfer of its license. Thus, the
information submitted should include not only a monetary purchase
price, but also any future, contingent, in-kind, or other
consideration. Any competitive concerns raised by the possible
disclosure of sensitive information can be addressed by the provisions
in Sections 0.457 and 0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
Secs. 0.457, 0.459, providing for the nondisclosure of information.
Performance Requirements. In implementing auction procedures, the
Commission is required under Section 309(j) to include performance
requirements ``to ensure prompt delivery of service to rural areas, to
prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum by licensees or
permittees, and to promote investment in and rapid deployment of new
technologies and services.'' 47 U.S.C. Sec. 309(j)(4)(B). The
Commission concludes that the performance requirements adopted as part
of the DBS service rules are sufficient to achieve these goals, and it
is unnecessary to adopt any further performance rules in connection
with auction procedures.
Rules Prohibiting Collusion. The Commission adopts the anti-
collusion rules proposed in the NPRM with one modification, as
explained below. Under these rules, bidders must identify on their
short-form applications any parties with whom they have entered into
any consortium arrangements, joint ventures, partnerships or other
agreements or understandings which relate in any way to the competitive
bidding process. Bidders are also required to certify on their short-
form applications that they have not entered into any explicit or
implicit agreements, arrangements or understandings of any kind with
any parties, other than those identified, regarding the amount of their
bid, bidding strategies or the particular properties on which they will
or will not bid. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that after short-
form applications are filed, and prior to the time the winning bidder
has submitted the balance of its bid, all applicants should be
prohibited from cooperating, collaborating, discussing or disclosing in
any manner the substance of their bids or bidding strategies with other
applicants for construction permits serving the same or overlapping
geographic areas, unless such bidders are members of a bidding
consortium or other joint bidding arrangement identified on the
bidder's short-form application. The Commission adopts this
prohibition, but extends it only until the winning bidder has submitted
its 20 percent down payment, and not until the winning bidder has
submitted the balance of its bid. Even when an applicant has withdrawn
its application after the short-form filing deadline, the applicant may
not enter into a bidding agreement with another applicant bidding on
the same or overlapping geographic areas from which the first applicant
withdrew. In addition, once the short-form application has been filed,
a party with an attributable interest in one bidder may not acquire a
controlling interest in another bidder bidding for construction permits
in any of the same or overlapping geographic areas.
DBS applicants may (1) modify their short-form applications to
reflect formation of consortia or changes in ownership at any time
before or during an auction, provided that such changes do not result
in a change in control of the applicant, and provided that the parties
forming consortia or entering into ownership agreements have not
applied for construction permits for channels that may be used to cover
the same or overlapping geographic areas; and (2) make agreements to
bid jointly for construction permits after the filing of short-form
applications, provided that the parties to the agreement have not
applied for construction permits that may be used to serve the same or
overlapping geographic areas. In addition, the holder of a non-
controlling attributable interest in an entity submitting a short-form
application may acquire an ownership interest in, form a consortium
with, or enter into a joint bidding arrangement with other applicants
for construction permits that may be used to serve the same or
overlapping geographic areas after the filing of short-form
applications, provided that (1) the attributable interest holder
certifies to the Commission that it has not communicated and will not
communicate with any party concerning the bids or bidding strategies of
more than one of the applicants in which it holds an attributable
interest, or with which it has a consortium or joint bidding
arrangement, and which have applied for construction permits that may
be used to serve the same or overlapping geographic areas, and (2) the
arrangements do not result in any change in control of an applicant.
Winning bidders are required to submit a detailed explanation of
the terms and conditions and parties involved in any bidding consortia,
joint venture, partnership or other agreement or arrangement they have
entered into relating to the competitive bidding process prior to the
close of bidding. Such arrangements must have been entered into prior
to the filing of short-form applications as provided in the Order.
In adopting these rules, the Commission reminds potential bidders
for DBS construction permits that allegations of collusion in a
petition to deny may be investigated by the Commission or referred to
the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation. Bidders who are found
to have violated the antitrust laws or the Commission's rules while
participating in an auction may be subject to forfeiture of their down
payment or their full bid amount, as well as revocation of their
license, and may be prohibited from participating in future auctions.
F. Designated Entities
Because of the extremely high implementation costs associated with
satellite-based services, the Commission tentatively concluded in the
NPRM that no special provisions should be made for designated
entities--i.e., small businesses, rural telephone companies, and
businesses owned by members of minority groups and women--for the
channels currently available at 110 deg. and 148 deg.. The Commission
noted, however, that the expeditious implementation of DBS service at
the two orbital locations in question might indirectly benefit
designated entities by providing new opportunities for them to supply
programming and equipment. Having reviewed the comments submitted in
this proceeding, the Commission concludes that competition in the
delivery of DBS service requires auction rules that will allow
expedient assignment of the channels at 110 deg. and 148 deg.. Given
the fact that these channels offer enough capacity to provide full DBS
service in competition with current video providers, auction rules that
put these two construction permits in the hands of entities that can
quickly provide competition are in the public interest. No commenters
assert that small businesses could attract the capital necessary to
provide service on all the channels available at either 110 deg. or
148 deg..
Accordingly, the Commission will not adopt special provisions for
designated entities in the DBS auction for the channels at 110 deg. and
148 deg., and will not set aside spectrum in this auction for
[[Page 65594]]
``independents,'' as suggested by one commenter. Another commenter's
statement that small and minority businesses are developing services
for the DBS industry confirms the Commission's belief that a wide
variety of businesses will be involved in the DBS industry; however,
the Commission does not have a record before it sufficient to support
adoption of this commenter's suggestion that the Commission provide
incentives to encourage companies to team up with small and minority-
owned businesses. However, designated entity provisions for future DBS
auctions may be appropriate, particularly if spectrum is auctioned in
small blocks.
Paperwork Reduction Act
22. The Order contains new or modified information collections
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), Pub. L. No.
104-13, which were proposed in the NPRM and were submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for approval. The Commission,
as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, also
invited the general public to comment on the information collections
proposed. The Commission received no comments on the proposed
collections, and adopts them as originally proposed. The effective date
of the new and modified rules that have been adopted falls after the
deadline for OMB action under the PRA.
47 CFR Part 100
OMB Approval Number: None.
Title: Direct Broadcast Satellite Service.
Form No.: None.
Type of Review: Approval of existing collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for profit.
Number of Respondents: 8.
Estimated Time Per Response: 400 hours.
Total Annual Burden: 3200 hours.
Needs and Uses: In accordance with the Communications Act, the
information collected will be used by the Commission in granting DBS
authorizations, and in determining the technical and legal
qualifications of a satellite applicant, permittee or licensee.
Existing information collection requirements are set forth in Part 100
of the Commission's Rules and in Commission orders. See e.g., Inquiry
Into the Development of Regulatory Policy in Regard to Direct Broadcast
Satellites for the Period Following the 1983 Regional Administrative
Radio Conference, 90 FCC 2d 676 (1982), recon. denied, 53 RR 2d 1637
(1983); CBS, Inc., 98 FCC 2d 1056 (1983); Tempo Enterprises, Inc., 1
FCC Rcd 20, 21 (1986); and United States Satellite Broadcasting Co., 3
FCC Rcd 6858, 6861-62 (1988). Under the existing information collection
requirements in the Commission's Rules, an entity awarded a DBS
authorization would be required to submit the information required
pursuant to 47 CFR 100.13, 100.19, 100.21, 100.51. The Commission
proposed to require that DBS auction winners submit: (1) Ownership
information to determine compliance with Parts 1 and 100 of the
Commission's Rules; (2) a statement describing their efforts to comply
with the proposed spectrum aggregation limitations; (3) an explanation
of the terms and conditions and parties involved in any bidding
consortia, joint venture, partnership, or other agreement or
arrangement they enter into relating to the competitive bidding process
prior to the close of bidding; and (4) any agreements or contracts
pertaining to the transfer of the DBS authorization acquired through
auction during the six years following grant of the authorization.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 603, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated
in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in IB Docket No. 95-168/PP Docket
No. 93-253. Written comments on the proposals in the Notice, including
the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, were requested.
A. Need and Purpose of Rules
This rulemaking proceeding modifies the licensing and service rules
for the DBS service. It also adopts rules for competitive bidding in
the DBS service based on Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 309(j), which authorizes the Commission to use auctions to
select among mutually exclusive applications for authorizations under
certain circumstances. Our objectives have been to promote efficiency
and innovation in the licensing and use of the electromagnetic
spectrum, to develop competitive and innovative communications systems,
and to promote effective and adaptive regulations.
B. Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the Initial Analysis
No comments were received specifically in response to the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. We have, however, taken into account
all issues raised by the public in response to the proposed rules. In
certain instances, we have eliminated or modified rules in response to
those comments.
C. Significant Alternatives Considered
We have attempted to balance all the commenters' concerns with our
public interest mandate under the Communications Act in order to update
the existing ``interim'' rules in the DBS service. We will continue to
examine these rules in an effort to eliminate unnecessary regulations
and to minimize significant economic impact on small businesses.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 100 of the Commission's Rules
is amended as specified below.
24. It is Further Ordered that the one-time auction spectrum
limitation discussed above Will be Implemented in connection with the
auction of the construction permits for the use of 28 DBS channels at
the 110 deg. orbital location and 24 channels at the 148 deg. orbital
location.
25. It is Further Ordered that the amendments to Part 100 adopted
herein and the one-time auction spectrum limitation discussed above
Will Become Effective January 19, 1996. This action is taken pursuant
to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7, and 309(j) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157, and 309(j).
26. It is Further Ordered that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Sec. 155(c),
the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, is granted Delegated
Authority to implement and modify auction procedures in the DBS
service, including the general design and timing of an auction, the
number of authorizations to be offered in an auction, the manner of
submitting bids, minimum opening bids and bid increments, activity and
stopping rules, and application and payment requirements, and to
announce such procedures by Public Notice.
27. It is Further Ordered that condition (a) placed on the
construction permit of Tempo Satellite, Inc. in Tempo Satellite, Inc.,
7 FCC Rcd 2728, 2732 (1992), which imposed certain marketing
restrictions, is Rescinded.
28. It is Further Ordered that the proceeding in IB Docket No. 95-
168 is hereby terminated.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 100
Radio, Satellites.
[[Page 65595]]
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 100 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 100--DIRECT BROADCAST SATELLITE SERVICE
1. The authority citation for Part 100 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 309, and 554, unless otherwise
noted.
2. Section 100.17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 100.17 License term.
(a) Licenses for non-broadcast facilities governed by this part
will be issued for a period of ten (10) years. Licenses for broadcast
facilities governed by this part will be issued for a period of five
(5) years.
3. Section 100.19 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 100.19 Due diligence requirements.
(a) All persons granted DBS authorizations shall proceed with
diligence in constructing DBS systems. Permittees shall be required to
complete contracting for construction of the satellite station(s)
within one year of the grant of the construction permit. The satellite
stations shall also be required to be in operation within six years of
the construction permit grant.
(b) In addition to the requirements stated in paragraph (a) of this
section, all persons who receive new or additional DBS construction
permits after January 19, 1996 shall complete construction of the first
satellite in their respective DBS systems within four years of the
grant of the construction permit. All satellite stations in such a DBS
system shall be in operation within six years of the grant of the
construction permit.
(c) DBS permittees and licensees shall be required to proceed
consistent with all applicable due diligence obligations, unless
otherwise determined by the Commission upon proper showing in any
particular case. Transfer of control of the construction permit shall
not be considered to justify extension of these deadlines.
4. A new Section 100.53 is added to Subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 100.53 Geographic service requirements.
(a) Those holding DBS permits or licenses as of January 19, 1996
must either:
(1) Provide DBS service to Alaska and Hawaii from one or more
orbital locations before the expiration of their current
authorizations; or
(2) Relinquish their western DBS orbital/channel assignments at the
following orbital locations: 148 deg. W.L., 157 deg.W.L., 166 deg.
W.L., and 175 deg. W.L.
(b) Those acquiring DBS authorizations after January 19, 1996 must
provide DBS service to Alaska and Hawaii where such service is
technically feasible from the acquired orbital location.
A new subpart E consisting of Secs. 100.71 through 100.80 is added
to Part 100 to read as follows:
Subpart E--Competitive Bidding Procedures for DBS
Sec.
100.71 DBS subject to competitive bidding.
100.72 Competitive bidding design for DBS construction permits.
100.73 Competitive bidding mechanisms.
100.74 Withdrawal, default and disqualification payments.
100.75 Bidding application (FCC Form 175 and 175-S Short-form).
100.76 Submission of upfront payments and down payments.
100.77 Long-form applications.
100.78 Permit grant, denial, default, and disqualification.
100.79 Prohibition of collusion.
100.80 Transfer disclosure.
Sec. 100.71 DBS subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications to provide DBS service are
subject to competitive bidding procedures. The general competitive
bidding procedures found in Part 1, Subpart Q of this chapter, will
apply unless otherwise provided in this part.
Sec. 100.72 Competitive bidding design for DBS construction permits.
(a) The Commission will employ the following competitive bidding
designs when choosing from among mutually exclusive initial
applications to provide DBS service:
(1) Single round sealed bid auctions (either sequential or
simultaneous);
(2) Sequential oral auctions;
(3) Combined sealed bid-oral auctions;
(4) Sequential multiple round electronic auctions; or
(5) Simultaneous multiple round auctions.
(b) The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may design and test
alternative procedures. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will
announce by Public Notice before each auction the competitive bidding
design to be employed in a particular auction.
(c) The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may use combinatorial
bidding, which would allow bidders to submit all or nothing bids on
combinations of construction permits, in addition to bids on individual
construction permits. The Commission may require that to be declared
the high bid, a combinatorial bid must exceed the sum of the individual
bids by a specified amount. Combinatorial bidding may be used with any
type of auction design.
(d) The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may use single combined
auctions, which combine bidding for two or more substitutable
construction permits and award construction permits to the highest
bidders until the available construction permits are exhausted. This
technique may be used in conjunction with any type of auction.
Sec. 100.73 Competitive bidding mechanisms.
(a) Sequencing. In sequential auctions, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau will generally auction DBS construction
permits in order of their estimated value, with the highest value
construction permit being auctioned first. The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau may vary the sequence in which DBS
construction permits will be auctioned.
(b) Grouping. All DBS channels available for a particular orbital
location will be auctioned as a block, unless the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau announces, by Public Notice prior to the
auction, an alternative auction scheme. In the event the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau uses either a simultaneous multiple round
competitive bidding design or combinatorial bidding, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau will determine which construction permits
will be auctioned simultaneously or in combination.
(c) Bid Increments and Tie Bids. The Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau may, by announcement before or during an auction, establish,
raise or lower minimum bid increments in dollar or percentage terms.
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may establish and change maximum
bid increments during an auction. The Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau may also establish by Public Notice a suggested opening bid or a
minimum opening bid on each construction permit. Where a tie bid
occurs, the high bidder will be determined by the order in which the
bids were received by the Commission.
(d) Stopping Rules. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may
establish stopping rules before or during multiple round auctions in
order to terminate an auction within a reasonable time.
[[Page 65596]]
(e) Activity Rules. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may
establish activity rules which require a minimum amount of bidding
activity. In the event that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
establishes an activity rule in connection with a simultaneous multiple
round auction or sequential multiple round electronic auction, each
bidder will be automatically granted a certain number of waivers of
such rule during the auction.
Sec. 100.74 Withdrawal, default and disqualification payments.
(a) When the Commission conducts a sequential multiple round
electronic auction or simultaneous multiple round auction pursuant to
Sec. 100.72, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will impose
payments on a bidder who withdraws a high bid during the course of the
auction, who defaults on payments due, or who is disqualified.
(b) A bidder who withdraws a high bid during the course of such an
auction will be assessed a payment equal to the difference between the
amount bid and the amount of the winning bid the next time the
construction permit is offered for auction by the Commission. No
withdrawal payment will be assessed if the subsequent winning bid
exceeds the withdrawn bid. This payment amount will be deducted from
any upfront payments or down payments that the withdrawing bidder has
deposited with the Commission.
(c) If a high bidder defaults or is disqualified after the close of
such an auction, the defaulting bidder will be subject to the payment
in paragraph (b) of this section plus an additional payment equal to
three (3) percent of the subsequent winning bid. If the subsequent
winning bid exceeds the defaulting bidder's bid amount, the 3 percent
payment will be calculated based on the defaulting bidder's bid amount.
These amounts will be deducted from any upfront payments or down
payments that the defaulting or disqualified bidder has deposited with
the Commission.
(d) When the Commission conducts a sequential multiple round
electronic auction, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will bar a
bidder who withdraws a bid from continued participation in the auction
of the withdrawn construction permit. When the Commission conducts any
other type of auction, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may bar a
bidder who withdraws a bid from continued participation in the bidding
for the same construction permit or other construction permits offered
in the same auction.
(e) When the Commission conducts any type of auction other than
those provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this
section, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may modify the payments
to be paid in the event of bid withdrawal, default or disqualification;
provided, however, that such payments shall not exceed the payments
specified above.
Sec. 100.75 Bidding application (FCC Form 175 and 175-S Short-form).
All applicants to participate in competitive bidding for DBS
construction permits must submit applications on FCC Form 175 pursuant
to the provisions of Sec. 1.2105 of this chapter. The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau will issue a Public Notice announcing the
availability of DBS construction permits and the date of the auction
for those construction permits. This Public Notice also will specify
the date on or before which applicants intending to participate in a
DBS auction must file their applications in order to be eligible for
that auction, and it will contain information necessary for completion
of the application as well as other important information such as any
upfront payment that must be submitted, and the location where the
application must be filed.
Sec. 100.76 Submission of upfront payments and down payments.
(a) Bidders in DBS auctions will be required to submit an upfront
payment in accordance with Sec. 1.2106 of this chapter, the amount of
which will be announced by Public Notice prior to each auction.
(b) Winning bidders in a DBS auction must submit a down payment to
the Commission in an amount sufficient to bring their total deposits up
to 20 percent of their winning bids within ten (10) business days of
the announcement of winning bidders.
Sec. 100.77 Long-form applications.
Each winning bidder will be required to submit the information
described in Secs. 100.13, 100.21, and 100.51 within thirty (30) days
after being notified by Public Notice that it is the winning bidder.
Each winner also will be required to file, by the same deadline, a
signed statement describing its efforts to date and future plans to
come into compliance with any applicable spectrum limitations, if it is
not already in compliance. Such information shall be submitted pursuant
to the procedures set forth in Sec. 100.13 and any associated Public
Notices. Only auction winners will be eligible to file applications for
DBS construction permits in the event of mutual exclusivity between
applicants filing a short-form application.
Sec. 100.78 Permit grant, denial, default, and disqualification.
(a) Each winning bidder will be required to pay the balance of its
winning bid in a lump sum payment within five (5) business days
following Public Notice that the construction permit is ready for
grant.
(b) A bidder who withdraws its bid during the course of an auction,
defaults on a payment due, or is disqualified, will be subject to the
payments specified in Sec. 100.74.
Sec. 100.79 Prohibition of collusion.
(a) Bidders are required to identify on their short-form
applications any parties with whom they have entered into any
consortium arrangements, joint ventures, partnerships or other
agreements or understandings which relate in any way to the competitive
bidding process. Bidders are also required to certify on their short-
form applications that they have not entered into any explicit or
implicit agreements, arrangements or understandings of any kind with
any parties, other than those identified, regarding the amount of their
bid, bidding strategies or the particular properties on which they will
or will not bid.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4)
of this section, after the filing of short-form applications, all
applicants are prohibited from cooperating, collaborating, discussing
or disclosing in any manner the substance of their bids or bidding
strategies, or discussing or negotiating settlement agreements, with
other applicants until after the high bidder submits its downpayment,
unless such applicants are members of a bidding consortium or other
joint bidding arrangement identified on the bidder's short-form
application.
(2) Applicants may modify their short-form applications to reflect
formation of consortia or changes in ownership at any time before or
during an auction, provided that such changes do not result in a change
in control of the applicant, and provided that the parties forming
consortia or entering into ownership agreements have not applied for
construction permits that may be used to serve the same or overlapping
geographic areas. Such changes will not be considered major
modifications of the application.
[[Page 65597]]
(3) After the filing of short-form applications, applicants may
make agreements to bid jointly for construction permits, provided that
the parties to the agreement have not applied for construction permits
that may be used to serve the same or overlapping geographic areas.
(4) After the filing of short-form applications, a holder of a non-
controlling attributable interest in an entity submitting a short-form
application may acquire an ownership interest in, form a consortium
with, or enter into a joint bidding arrangement with, other applicants
for construction permits that may be used to serve the same or
overlapping geographic areas, provided that:
(i) The attributable interest holder certifies to the Commission
that it has not communicated and will not communicate with any party
concerning the bids or bidding strategies of more than one of the
applicants in which it holds an attributable interest, or with which it
has a consortium or joint bidding arrangement, and which have applied
for construction permits that may be used to serve the same or
overlapping geographic areas; and
(ii) The arrangements do not result in any change in control of an
applicant.
(5) Applicants must modify their short-form applications to reflect
any changes in ownership or in the membership of consortia or joint
bidding arrangements.
(c) Winning bidders are required to submit a detailed explanation
of the terms and conditions and parties involved in any bidding
consortia, joint venture, partnership or other agreement or arrangement
they have entered into relating to the competitive bidding process
prior to the close of bidding. Such arrangements must have been entered
into prior to the filing of short-form applications pursuant to
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
Sec. 100.80 Transfer disclosure.
Any entity that acquires a DBS license through competitive bidding,
and seeks to transfer that license within six years of the initial
license grant, must file, together with its application for FCC consent
to the transfer, the associated contracts for sale, option agreements,
management agreements, or other documents disclosing the total
consideration received in return for the transfer of its license. The
information submitted must include not only a monetary purchase price,
but also any future, contingent, in-kind, or other consideration.
[FR Doc. 95-30938 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30919 Removal of Class E Airspace; Marietta, GA
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30919]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASO-23]
Removal of Class E Airspace; Marietta, GA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment removes Class E airspace at Marietta, GA. The
required weather observations are not available to Atlanta Tower, the
ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class E2 surface area
airspace at the Cobb County-McCollum Field Airport, when the Cobb
County-McCollum Field Airport Traffic Control Tower is closed.
Therefore, the Class E2 surface area airspace for the airport must be
revoked.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 9091 UTC, February 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benny L. McGlamery, System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia
30320; telephone (404) 305-5570.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
It is a requirement that weather observations shall be taken at the
surface area's primary airport during the times and dates a surface
area is designated, and further that the required weather observation
shall be transmitted expeditiously to the ATC facility having
jurisdiction over the surface area. When the Cobb County-McCollum Field
Airport Traffic Control Tower is closed this requirement is not being
met. This action will eliminate the impact Class E2 surface area
airspace has placed on users of the airspace in the vicinity of the
Cobb County-McCollum Field Airport. This rule will become effective on
the date specified in the DATES section. Since this action removes the
Class E2 surface area airspace, which eliminates the impact of Class E2
surface area airspace on users of the airspace in the vicinity of the
Cobb County-McCollum Field Airport, notice and public procedure under 5
U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The Rule
The amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) removes Class E airspace at Marietta, GA. The required
weather observations are not available to Atlanta Tower, the ATC
facility having jurisdiction over the Class E2 surface area airspace at
the Cobb County-McCollum Field Airport, when the Cobb County-McCollum
Field Airport Traffic Control Tower is closed. Therefore, the Class E2
surface area airspace for the airport must be revoked.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; EO 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
* * * * *
Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace areas designated as a surface area
for an airport.
* * * * *
ASO GA E2 Marietta, GA [Removed]
* * * * *
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 20, 1995.
Benny L. McGlamery,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 95-30919 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30897 Radio Broadcasting Services; Salem and New Martinsville, WV
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65586-65587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30897]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-113; RM-8664, RM 8697]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Salem and New Martinsville, WV
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Salem-Teikyo University,
allots Channel 277A at Salem, West Virginia, as the community's second
local FM transmission service (RM-8664). See 60 FR 39141, August 1,
1995. We also, at the request of Seven Ranges Radio Company, Inc.,
allot the counterproposal for Channel 258A at New Martinsville, West
Virginia, as its second local FM transmission service (RM-8697).
Channel 277A can be allotted to Salem in compliance with the
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements without the
imposition of a site restriction. The coordinates for Channel 277A at
Salem are North Latitude 39-17-00 and West Longitude 80-34-00.
Additionally, Channel 258A can be allotted to New
[[Page 65587]]
Martinsville in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance
separation requirements without the imposition of a site restriction.
The coordinates for Channel 258A at New Martinsville are North Latitude
39-38-36 and West Longitude 80-51-36. See Supplementary Information,
infra.
DATES: Effective January 29, 1996. The window period for filing
applications will open on January 29, 1996 and close on February 29,
1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-113, adopted November 27, 1995, and
released December 15, 1995. The full text of this Commission decision
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC
20037.
Since Salem and New Martinsville are located within 320 kilometers
(200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence of the Canadian
government has been obtained. With this action, this proceeding is
terminated.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C.
154, as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under West
Virginia, is amended by adding Channel 277A at Salem, and by adding
Channel 258A at New Martinsville.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-30897 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30869 Disallowance of Deductions for Employee Remuneration in Excess of $1,000,000
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65534-65547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30869]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 8650]
RIN 1545-AS23
Disallowance of Deductions for Employee Remuneration in Excess of
$1,000,000
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations relating to the
disallowance of deductions for employee remuneration in excess of
$1,000,000. The regulations provide guidance to taxpayers that are
subject to section 162(m), which was added to the Code by the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
DATES: These regulations are effective January 1, 1994.
For dates of applicability, see Sec. 1.162-27(j).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Misner or Charles T. Deliee at
(202)622-6060 (not a toll free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collections of information contained in these final regulations
have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under
control number 1545-1466. Responses to these collections of information
are required to obtain a tax deduction for performance-based
compensation in excess of $1 million.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid control number.
The estimated average annual burden per respondent is 50 hours.
Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and
suggestions for reducing this burden should be sent to the Internal
Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, T:FP, Washington,
DC 20224, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk
Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.
Books or records relating to this collection of information must be
retained as long as their contents may become material in the
administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and
tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Background
Under section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, a publicly held
corporation is denied a deduction for compensation paid to its
``covered employees'' to the extent the compensation exceeds $1,000,000
if the compensation would otherwise be deductible in a taxable year
beginning on or after January 1, 1994.
On December 20, 1993, proposed regulations under section 162(m)
(the 1993 proposed regulations) were published in the Federal Register
(58
[[Page 65535]]
FR 66310). Amendments to the proposed regulations (the 1994 amendments)
were published in the Federal Register on December 2, 1994 (59 FR
61844). Public hearings were held on May 9, 1994, and August 11, 1995.
After consideration of the comments that were received in response to
the notices of proposed rulemaking and at the hearings, the IRS and
Treasury adopt the proposed regulations as amended and revised by this
Treasury decision.
Explanation of Provisions
A. Overview of Provisions
As noted above, section 162(m) provides that a publicly held
corporation is denied a deduction for compensation paid to a ``covered
employee'' to the extent the compensation exceeds $1,000,000. A
``covered employee'' includes the chief executive officer (CEO), as
well as any other individual whose compensation is required to be
reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission by reason of that
individual being among the four highest compensated officers for the
taxable year (other than the CEO), as of the end of the corporation's
taxable year.
``Performance-based compensation'' and certain other compensation
is not subject to the deduction limitation of section 162(m).
Performance-based compensation is remuneration payable solely on
account of the attainment of one or more performance goals, but only
if: (1) the goals are determined by a compensation committee of the
board of directors consisting solely of two or more outside directors;
(2) the material terms under which the compensation is to be paid are
disclosed to the shareholders and approved by a majority in a separate
vote before payment is made; and (3) before any payment is made, the
compensation committee certifies that the performance goals and any
other material terms have been satisfied.
Compensation is also excluded from the deduction limitation of
section 162(m) if it is paid under a binding written contract that was
in existence on February 17, 1993. In addition, in accordance with the
legislative history, the proposed regulations exempt from the
limitation compensation that is paid under an arrangement that existed
before the corporation became publicly held, to the extent that the
arrangement is disclosed in the initial public offering.
B. Discussion of Comments
Comments that relate to the application of the proposed regulations
and the responses to the comments, including an explanation of the
revisions reflected in the final regulations, are summarized below.
Dividend Equivalents Paid on Stock Options
Under the proposed regulations, the performance-based exception to
the deduction limitation generally is applied on a grant-by-grant
basis. If the facts and circumstances indicate, however, that the
employee would receive all or part of the compensation regardless of
whether the performance goal is attained, the compensation is not
performance based. For example, where payment under a nonperformance
based bonus is contingent upon the failure to attain the performance
goals under an otherwise performance-based bonus, neither bonus
arrangement will be considered performance based. The proposed
regulations provide that whether dividends (which generally are not
performance based) on restricted stock are payable before attainment of
the performance goal, will not affect the determination of whether the
restricted stock is performance based. The proposed regulations also
provide, however, that if the amount of any compensation the employee
will receive under a stock option is not based solely on an increase in
the value of the stock after the date of grant (for example, an option
granted with an exercise price that is less than the fair market value
of the stock as of the date of grant), none of the compensation
attributable to the grant will be performance based.
Commentators raised the question of whether nonperformance-based
dividend equivalents that are paid with respect to a granted but
unexercised stock option irrespective of whether the option is
exercised will cause the compensation paid upon the exercise of the
option to be nonperformance based. Section 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi) of the
final regulations provides that such dividend equivalents will not
cause the compensation paid upon the exercise of the option to be
nonperformance based, provided that the payment of the dividend
equivalents is not conditioned upon the employee exercising the option.
If the payment of the dividend equivalent is conditioned upon the
employee exercising the option, the dividend effectively reduces the
exercise price of the option, thereby causing the option to be
nonperformance based upon its exercise.
Bonus Pools
Section 1.162-27(e)(2)(ii) of the proposed regulations provides
that a preestablished performance goal must state, in terms of an
objective formula or standard, the method for computing the amount of
compensation payable to the employee if the goal is attained. A formula
or standard is objective if a third party having knowledge of the
relevant performance results could calculate the amount to be paid to
the employee.
Section 1.162-27(e)(2)(iii) prohibits discretion to increase the
amount of compensation to be paid under the preestablished performance
goal, but permits the compensation committee to reduce or eliminate the
compensation that is due upon attainment of the goal.
Examples 7 and 8 under Sec. 1.162-27(e)(2)(vii) of the proposed
regulations illustrated the application of these rules to bonus pools.
In Example 7, the amount of the bonus pool was determined under an
objective formula. However, because the compensation committee retained
the discretion to determine the fraction of the bonus pool that each
covered employee would receive, the compensation that any individual
could receive was not determined under an objective formula and,
therefore, the bonus plan did not satisfy the requirements of paragraph
(e)(2). In Example 8, the compensation for any individual was
determined under an objective formula because each employee's share of
the bonus pool was specified and because, notwithstanding the
compensation committee's ability to reduce the compensation payable to
each individual employee, a reduction in one employee's bonus would not
result in an increase in the amount of any other employee's bonus.
Several commentators have indicated that, in some cases where
compensation committees have stated the amount payable to each
individual under a bonus pool plan as a percentage of the bonus pool,
the total of these percentages has exceeded 100 percent of the pool.
The use of such overlapping percentages is inconsistent with
Sec. 1.162-27(e)(2), as illustrated by both Example 7 and Example 8. As
noted, Example 8 states that negative discretion will not cause the
bonus plan to fail to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e)(2),
``provided that a reduction in the amount of one employee's bonus does
not result in an increase in the amount of any other employee's
bonus.'' Where the total of the percentages payable under a bonus pool
plan exceeds 100 percent, it is impossible to award each individual the
[[Page 65536]]
stated percentage, and this necessary exercise of negative discretion
with respect to one or more employees means that it is impossible for a
third party, with knowledge of the relevant performance results, to
calculate the amount to be paid to each employee. Further, a reduction
in at least some employees' bonuses will result in an increase in the
amount available to pay other employees' bonuses.
Accordingly, Sec. 1.162-27(e)(2)(iii) is amended to state more
clearly that, when the compensation to be paid to each employee is
stated in terms of a percentage of a bonus pool, the sum of the
individual percentages for all participants in the pool cannot exceed
100 percent. In addition, the principle stated in Example 8, that the
exercise of negative discretion with respect to one employee cannot
increase the amount payable to another employee, is incorporated in
paragraph (e)(2)(iii). Example 8 is also revised to more clearly
illustrate this rule.
Although the IRS and Treasury believe that the changes made merely
clarify the proposed regulations, it is recognized that others have
interpreted the language of the proposed regulations differently.
Therefore, under Sec. 1.162-27(j)(2)(iv), this clarified rule will not
be applied to any compensation paid before January 1, 2001, under a
bonus pool based on performance in any period that began before
December 20, 1995.
Outside Directors
Section 1.162-27(e)(3)(vi) provides that a director is not
precluded from being an outside director solely because he or she is a
former officer of a corporation that previously was an affiliated
corporation of the publicly held corporation. The regulation is revised
to clarify that a former officer of either a spun off or liquidated
corporation, that formerly was a member of the affiliated group, is not
precluded from serving on the compensation committee of the publicly
held member of the affiliated group.
Companies that Become Publicly Held Without an Initial Public Offering
Under Sec. 1.162-27(f), the $1 million deduction limit does not
apply to any compensation plan or agreement that existed before the
corporation became publicly held to the extent that the plan or
agreement was disclosed in the prospectus accompanying the initial
public offering (IPO). This exception may be relied on until the
earliest of: (1) the expiration of the plan or agreement, (2) the
material modification of the plan or agreement, (3) the issuance of all
stock and other compensation that has been allocated under the plan, or
(4) the first shareholder meeting at which directors will be elected
that occurs after the close of the third calendar year following the
calendar year in which the IPO occurs.
Commentators have asked whether this rule applies to corporations
that become publicly held without an IPO.
As indicated in the legislative history accompanying Code section
162(m), the prospectus that accompanies the IPO provides an opportunity
to disclose the terms of the plan or agreement to the potential
shareholders, and the subsequent purchase of the stock with that
knowledge may be viewed as tantamount to a favorable vote on the
compensation arrangement. When a corporation becomes publicly held
without an IPO, there is no comparable alternative means of satisfying
the requirements of section 162(m)(4)(C)(ii). On the other hand,
because there is no requirement for privately held corporations to
comply with section 162(m), the IRS and Treasury recognize the need for
a transition rule for plans and agreements that are in existence when a
privately held corporation becomes publicly held without an IPO.
Accordingly, Sec. 1.162-27(f)(1) is revised to provide relief for
privately held corporations that become publicly held without an IPO.
Under the transition rule for these corporations, the reliance period
in Sec. 1.162-27(f)(2) lapses upon the first meeting of shareholders at
which directors are to be elected that occurs after the close of the
first calendar year following the calendar year in which the
corporation becomes publicly held.
Written Binding Contracts
Section 1.162-27(h)(1) provides the transition rules for
compensation payable under a written binding contract that was in
effect on February 17, 1993. Under those rules, a written binding
contract that is terminable or cancelable by the corporation after
February 17, 1993, without the employee's consent is treated as a new
contract as of the date that any such termination or cancelation, if
made, would be effective. The proposed regulations further provide
that, if the terms of a contract provide that the contract will be
terminated or canceled as of a certain date unless either the
corporation or the employee elects to renew within 30 days of that
date, the contract is treated as renewed by the corporation as of that
date.
Commentators have suggested that these regulations clarify the
outcome where a corporation will remain bound by the terms of a
contract beyond a certain date at the sole discretion of the employee.
For example, if a contract that is in effect on February 17, 1993,
provides that the employee has the sole discretion to extend or renew
the terms beyond its stated expiration, without the consent of the
corporation, a question arises whether the contract will be considered
a pre-February 17, 1993 written binding contract after the employee
chooses to extend.
Generally, the question of whether the terms of a contract are
binding is determined under state law. The IRS and Treasury believe
that the rules for determining whether a contract is binding should be
applied based on whether the corporation is bound by the terms of the
contract. Thus, if a contract provides the employee with the right to
extend or renew its terms without the consent of the corporation, and
the corporation is legally obligated to pay the agreed-upon
compensation to the employee if the employee chooses to extend or renew
the contract, the contract will be considered binding on the
corporation. Accordingly, a new sentence has been added to Sec. 1.162-
27(h)(1)(i) to clarify that, if the corporation will remain legally
obligated by the terms of a contract beyond a certain date at the sole
discretion of the employee, the contract will not be treated as a new
contract as of that date if the employee exercises the discretion.
Awards Based on a Percentage of Salary
The 1994 amendments modified Sec. 1.162-27(e)(2)(iii) to provide
that, if the terms of an objective formula or standard fail to preclude
discretion merely because the amount of compensation to be paid upon
attainment of the performance goal is based, in whole or in part, on a
percentage of salary or base pay, the objective formula or standard
will not be considered discretionary (and thus Sec. 1.162-27(e)(2)(iii)
will not be violated) if the maximum dollar amount to be paid is fixed
at the time the performance goal is established. The final regulations
clarify that a maximum dollar amount need not be specified under this
provision if, at the time the performance goal is established, the
dollar amount of salary or base pay is fixed. In such a case, the use
of salary or base pay does not cause the formula to fail to preclude
discretion to increase compensation.
The 1994 amendments made a corresponding amendment with respect to
salary-based formulas to the shareholder disclosure rules in
Sec. 1.162-27(e)(4)(i). However, the shareholder disclosure amendment
was not
[[Page 65537]]
explicitly limited to formulas that would otherwise be discretionary.
The final regulations clarify that the shareholder disclosure rule
relating to salary-based formulas applies only to those formulas that
would otherwise be discretionary.
In addition, the final regulations provide transition relief with
respect to the 1994 amendment of the shareholder disclosure requirement
relating to salary-based formulas. New Sec. 1.162-27(j)(2)(v) provides
that this disclosure requirement applies only to plans approved by
shareholders after April 30, 1995.
In the case of a preestablished performance goal that was
established prior to the publication of the 1994 amendments, a
corporation could, of course, rely upon a reasonable good faith
interpretation of the statutory provisions to determine that the
performance goal was stated in terms of an objective formula, to the
extent the issue to which the interpretation relates was not covered by
the 1993 regulations. An award made pursuant to such a performance goal
would not fail to be performance based merely because the award was
made after the publication of the 1994 amendments.
Stock-Based Compensation
The 1993 proposed regulations provided transition relief for
previously approved plans and agreements that did not satisfy the
written binding contract requirement as of February 17, 1993, but that
were approved by shareholders before December 20, 1993. See Sec. 1.162-
27(h)(3)(iii). The transition relief applied to compensation paid prior
to the expiration of a reliance period. In response to comments on the
1993 proposed regulations, the 1994 amendments expanded this relief to
encompass compensation paid after the reliance period with respect to
the exercise of stock options and stock appreciation rights, and the
substantial vesting of restricted property, provided that the stock
option, stock appreciation right, or restricted property was granted
during the reliance period. Similar relief provisions were also
included in new transition rules added by the 1994 amendments. (See
Secs. 1.162-27(f)(3), (f)(4), (j)(2)(ii), and (j)(2)(iii) of the final
regulations.)
Commentators have asked that the relief provided in the 1994
amendments for stock options, stock appreciation rights, and restricted
property be extended even further to cover other stock-based
compensation and deferred compensation in general. After careful
consideration of the comments received, the IRS and Treasury have
concluded that there is not adequate justification for a further
expansion of the 1994 expansion of the prior regulatory transition
relief for previously approved plans and agreements, or the other
similar relief provisions added in 1994.
Subsidiaries That Become Separate Publicly Held Corporations
Section 1.162-27(f)(4) of the proposed regulations contains special
rules for subsidiaries that become separate publicly held corporations.
A transition rule set forth in Sec. 1.162-27(i)(2)(iii) of the proposed
regulations specified delayed effective dates for these special rules.
However, commentators indicated that the regulations were not explicit
as to which rules applied prior to the delayed effective dates.
The final regulations clarify that compensation paid prior to the
delayed effective dates by a subsidiary that becomes a separate
publicly held corporation will not be subject to the $1 million
deduction limit if the conditions of the transition rule are satisfied.
(This transition rule and all other effective date provisions have been
moved from paragraph (i) to paragraph (j) of the final regulations.
Paragraph (i) is reserved.)
Special Analysis
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that
section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5)
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to
these regulations, and, therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code,
the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was
submitted to the Small Business Administration for comment on its
impact on small business.
Drafting Information
The principal authors of these regulations are Charles T. Deliee
and Robert Misner, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Employee
Benefits and Exempt Organizations), Internal Revenue Service. However,
other personnel from IRS and the Treasury Department participated in
their development.
List of Subjects
26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 602
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.162-27 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1.162-27 Certain employee remuneration in excess of $1,000,000.
(a) Scope. This section provides rules for the application of the
$1 million deduction limit under section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code. Paragraph (b) of this section provides the general rule limiting
deductions under section 162(m). Paragraph (c) of this section provides
definitions of generally applicable terms. Paragraph (d) of this
section provides an exception from the deduction limit for compensation
payable on a commission basis. Paragraph (e) of this section provides
an exception for qualified performance-based compensation. Paragraphs
(f) and (g) of this section provide special rules for corporations that
become publicly held corporations and payments that are subject to
section 280G, respectively. Paragraph (h) of this section provides
transition rules, including the rules for contracts that are
grandfathered and not subject to section 162(m). Paragraph (j) of this
section contains the effective date provisions. For rules concerning
the deductibility of compensation for services that are not covered by
section 162(m) and this section, see section 162(a)(1) and Sec. 1.162-
7. This section is not determinative as to whether compensation meets
the requirements of section 162(a)(1).
(b) Limitation on deduction. Section 162(m) precludes a deduction
under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code by any publicly held
corporation for compensation paid to any covered employee to the extent
that the compensation for the taxable year exceeds $1,000,000.
(c) Definitions--(1) Publicly held corporation--(i) General rule. A
publicly held corporation means any corporation issuing any class of
common equity securities required to be registered under section 12 of
the Exchange Act. A corporation is not considered publicly held if the
registration of its equity securities is voluntary. For purposes of
this section, whether a corporation is
[[Page 65538]]
publicly held is determined based solely on whether, as of the last day
of its taxable year, the corporation is subject to the reporting
obligations of section 12 of the Exchange Act.
(ii) Affiliated groups. A publicly held corporation includes an
affiliated group of corporations, as defined in section 1504
(determined without regard to section 1504(b)). For purposes of this
section, however, an affiliated group of corporations does not include
any subsidiary that is itself a publicly held corporation. Such a
publicly held subsidiary, and its subsidiaries (if any), are separately
subject to this section. If a covered employee is paid compensation in
a taxable year by more than one member of an affiliated group,
compensation paid by each member of the affiliated group is aggregated
with compensation paid to the covered employee by all other members of
the group. Any amount disallowed as a deduction by this section must be
prorated among the payor corporations in proportion to the amount of
compensation paid to the covered employee by each such corporation in
the taxable year.
(2) Covered employee--(i) General rule. A covered employee means
any individual who, on the last day of the taxable year, is--
(A) The chief executive officer of the corporation or is acting in
such capacity; or
(B) Among the four highest compensated officers (other than the
chief executive officer).
(ii) Application of rules of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Whether an individual is the chief executive officer
described in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section or an officer
described in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) of this section is determined
pursuant to the executive compensation disclosure rules under the
Exchange Act.
(3) Compensation--(i) In general. For purposes of the deduction
limitation described in paragraph (b) of this section, compensation
means the aggregate amount allowable as a deduction under chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code for the taxable year (determined without
regard to section 162(m)) for remuneration for services performed by a
covered employee, whether or not the services were performed during the
taxable year.
(ii) Exceptions. Compensation does not include--
(A) Remuneration covered in section 3121(a)(1) through section
3121(a)(5)(D) (concerning remuneration that is not treated as wages for
purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act); and
(B) Remuneration consisting of any benefit provided to or on behalf
of an employee if, at the time the benefit is provided, it is
reasonable to believe that the employee will be able to exclude it from
gross income. In addition, compensation does not include salary
reduction contributions described in section 3121(v)(1).
(4) Compensation Committee. The compensation committee means the
committee of directors (including any subcommittee of directors) of the
publicly held corporation that has the authority to establish and
administer performance goals described in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, and to certify that performance goals are attained, as
described in paragraph (e)(5) of this section. A committee of directors
is not treated as failing to have the authority to establish
performance goals merely because the goals are ratified by the board of
directors of the publicly held corporation or, if applicable, any other
committee of the board of directors. See paragraph (e)(3) of this
section for rules concerning the composition of the compensation
committee.
(5) Exchange Act. The Exchange Act means the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
(6) Examples. This paragraph (c) may be illustrated by the
following examples:
Example 1. Corporation X is a publicly held corporation with a
July 1 to June 30 fiscal year. For Corporation X's taxable year
ending on June 30, 1995, Corporation X pays compensation of
$2,000,000 to A, an employee. However, A's compensation is not
required to be reported to shareholders under the executive
compensation disclosure rules of the Exchange Act because A is
neither the chief executive officer nor one of the four highest
compensated officers employed on the last day of the taxable year.
A's compensation is not subject to the deduction limitation of
paragraph (b) of this section.
Example 2. C, a covered employee, performs services and receives
compensation from Corporations X, Y, and Z, members of an affiliated
group of corporations. Corporation X, the parent corporation, is a
publicly held corporation. The total compensation paid to C from all
affiliated group members is $3,000,000 for the taxable year, of
which Corporation X pays $1,500,000; Corporation Y pays $900,000;
and Corporation Z pays $600,000. Because the compensation paid by
all affiliated group members is aggregated for purposes of section
162(m), $2,000,000 of the aggregate compensation paid is
nondeductible. Corporations X, Y, and Z each are treated as paying a
ratable portion of the nondeductible compensation. Thus, two thirds
of each corporation's payment will be nondeductible. Corporation X
has a nondeductible compensation expense of $1,000,000
($1,500,000 x $2,000,000/$3,000,000). Corporation Y has a
nondeductible compensation expense of $600,000
($900,000 x $2,000,000/$3,000,000). Corporation Z has a
nondeductible compensation expense of $400,000
($600,000 x $2,000,000/$3,000,000).
Example 3. Corporation W, a calendar year taxpayer, has total
assets equal to or exceeding $5 million and a class of equity
security held of record by 500 or more persons on December 31, 1994.
However, under the Exchange Act, Corporation W is not required to
file a registration statement with respect to that security until
April 30, 1995. Thus, Corporation W is not a publicly held
corporation on December 31, 1994, but is a publicly held corporation
on December 31, 1995.
Example 4. The facts are the same as in Example 3, except that
on December 15, 1996, Corporation W files with the Securities and
Exchange Commission to disclose that Corporation W is no longer
required to be registered under section 12 of the Exchange Act and
to terminate its registration of securities under that provision.
Because Corporation W is no longer subject to Exchange Act reporting
obligations as of December 31, 1996, Corporation W is not a publicly
held corporation for taxable year 1996, even though the registration
of Corporation W's securities does not terminate until 90 days after
Corporation W files with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
(d) Exception for compensation paid on a commission basis. The
deduction limit in paragraph (b) of this section shall not apply to any
compensation paid on a commission basis. For this purpose, compensation
is paid on a commission basis if the facts and circumstances show that
it is paid solely on account of income generated directly by the
individual performance of the individual to whom the compensation is
paid. Compensation does not fail to be attributable directly to the
individual merely because support services, such as secretarial or
research services, are utilized in generating the income. However, if
compensation is paid on account of broader performance standards, such
as income produced by a business unit of the corporation, the
compensation does not qualify for the exception provided under this
paragraph (d).
(e) Exception for qualified performance-based compensation--
(1) In general. The deduction limit in paragraph (b) of this
section does not apply to qualified performance-based compensation.
Qualified performance-based compensation is compensation that meets all
of the requirements of paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(5) of this
section.
(2) Performance goal requirement--(i) Preestablished goal.
Qualified performance-based compensation must be paid solely on account
of the attainment of one or more
[[Page 65539]]
preestablished, objective performance goals. A performance goal is
considered preestablished if it is established in writing by the
compensation committee not later than 90 days after the commencement of
the period of service to which the performance goal relates, provided
that the outcome is substantially uncertain at the time the
compensation committee actually establishes the goal. However, in no
event will a performance goal be considered to be preestablished if it
is established after 25 percent of the period of service (as scheduled
in good faith at the time the goal is established) has elapsed. A
performance goal is objective if a third party having knowledge of the
relevant facts could determine whether the goal is met. Performance
goals can be based on one or more business criteria that apply to the
individual, a business unit, or the corporation as a whole. Such
business criteria could include, for example, stock price, market
share, sales, earnings per share, return on equity, or costs. A
performance goal need not, however, be based upon an increase or
positive result under a business criterion and could include, for
example, maintaining the status quo or limiting economic losses
(measured, in each case, by reference to a specific business
criterion). A performance goal does not include the mere continued
employment of the covered employee. Thus, a vesting provision based
solely on continued employment would not constitute a performance goal.
See paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this section for rules on compensation that
is based on an increase in the price of stock.
(ii) Objective compensation formula. A preestablished performance
goal must state, in terms of an objective formula or standard, the
method for computing the amount of compensation payable to the employee
if the goal is attained. A formula or standard is objective if a third
party having knowledge of the relevant performance results could
calculate the amount to be paid to the employee. In addition, a formula
or standard must specify the individual employees or class of employees
to which it applies.
(iii) Discretion.
(A) The terms of an objective formula or standard must preclude
discretion to increase the amount of compensation payable that would
otherwise be due upon attainment of the goal. A performance goal is not
discretionary for purposes of this paragraph (e)(2)(iii) merely because
the compensation committee reduces or eliminates the compensation or
other economic benefit that was due upon attainment of the goal.
However, the exercise of negative discretion with respect to one
employee is not permitted to result in an increase in the amount
payable to another employee. Thus, for example, in the case of a bonus
pool, if the amount payable to each employee is stated in terms of a
percentage of the pool, the sum of these individual percentages of the
pool is not permitted to exceed 100 percent. If the terms of an
objective formula or standard fail to preclude discretion to increase
the amount of compensation merely because the amount of compensation to
be paid upon attainment of the performance goal is based, in whole or
in part, on a percentage of salary or base pay and the dollar amount of
the salary or base pay is not fixed at the time the performance goal is
established, then the objective formula or standard will not be
considered discretionary for purposes of this paragraph (e)(2)(iii) if
the maximum dollar amount to be paid is fixed at that time.
(B) If compensation is payable upon or after the attainment of a
performance goal, and a change is made to accelerate the payment of
compensation to an earlier date after the attainment of the goal, the
change will be treated as an increase in the amount of compensation,
unless the amount of compensation paid is discounted to reasonably
reflect the time value of money. If compensation is payable upon or
after the attainment of a performance goal, and a change is made to
defer the payment of compensation to a later date, any amount paid in
excess of the amount that was originally owed to the employee will not
be treated as an increase in the amount of compensation if the
additional amount is based either on a reasonable rate of interest or
on one or more predetermined actual investments (whether or not assets
associated with the amount originally owed are actually invested
therein) such that the amount payable by the employer at the later date
will be based on the actual rate of return of a specific investment
(including any decrease as well as any increase in the value of an
investment). If compensation is payable in the form of property, a
change in the timing of the transfer of that property after the
attainment of the goal will not be treated as an increase in the amount
of compensation for purposes of this paragraph (e)(2)(iii). Thus, for
example, if the terms of a stock grant provide for stock to be
transferred after the attainment of a performance goal and the transfer
of the stock also is subject to a vesting schedule, a change in the
vesting schedule that either accelerates or defers the transfer of
stock will not be treated as an increase in the amount of compensation
payable under the performance goal.
(C) Compensation attributable to a stock option, stock appreciation
right, or other stock-based compensation does not fail to satisfy the
requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) to the extent that a change in
the grant or award is made to reflect a change in corporate
capitalization, such as a stock split or dividend, or a corporate
transaction, such as any merger of a corporation into another
corporation, any consolidation of two or more corporations into another
corporation, any separation of a corporation (including a spinoff or
other distribution of stock or property by a corporation), any
reorganization of a corporation (whether or not such reorganization
comes within the definition of such term in section 368), or any
partial or complete liquidation by a corporation.
(iv) Grant-by-grant determination. The determination of whether
compensation satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2)
generally shall be made on a grant-by-grant basis. Thus, for example,
whether compensation attributable to a stock option grant satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) generally is determined on the
basis of the particular grant made and without regard to the terms of
any other option grant, or other grant of compensation, to the same or
another employee. As a further example, except as provided in paragraph
(e)(2)(vi), whether a grant of restricted stock or other stock-based
compensation satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) is
determined without regard to whether dividends, dividend equivalents,
or other similar distributions with respect to stock, on such stock-
based compensation are payable prior to the attainment of the
performance goal. Dividends, dividend equivalents, or other similar
distributions with respect to stock that are treated as separate grants
under this paragraph (e)(2)(iv) are not performance-based compensation
unless they separately satisfy the requirements of this paragraph
(e)(2).
(v) Compensation contingent upon attainment of performance goal.
Compensation does not satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2)
if the facts and circumstances indicate that the employee would receive
all or part of the compensation regardless of whether the performance
goal is attained. Thus, if the payment of compensation under a grant or
award is only nominally or partially contingent on attaining a
performance goal, none of the compensation payable under the
[[Page 65540]]
grant or award will be considered performance-based. For example, if an
employee is entitled to a bonus under either of two arrangements, where
payment under a nonperformance-based arrangement is contingent upon the
failure to attain the performance goals under an otherwise performance-
based arrangement, then neither arrangement provides for compensation
that satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2). Compensation
does not fail to be qualified performance-based compensation merely
because the plan allows the compensation to be payable upon death,
disability, or change of ownership or control, although compensation
actually paid on account of those events prior to the attainment of the
performance goal would not satisfy the requirements of this paragraph
(e)(2). As an exception to the general rule set forth in the first
sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of this section, the facts-and-
circumstances determination referred to in the first sentence of this
paragraph (e)(2)(v) is made taking into account all plans,
arrangements, and agreements that provide for compensation to the
employee.
(vi) Application of requirements to stock options and stock
appreciation rights--(A) In general. Compensation attributable to a
stock option or a stock appreciation right is deemed to satisfy the
requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) if the grant or award is made by
the compensation committee; the plan under which the option or right is
granted states the maximum number of shares with respect to which
options or rights may be granted during a specified period to any
employee; and, under the terms of the option or right, the amount of
compensation the employee could receive is based solely on an increase
in the value of the stock after the date of the grant or award.
Conversely, if the amount of compensation the employee will receive
under the grant or award is not based solely on an increase in the
value of the stock after the date of grant or award (e.g., in the case
of restricted stock, or an option that is granted with an exercise
price that is less than the fair market value of the stock as of the
date of grant), none of the compensation attributable to the grant or
award is qualified performance-based compensation because it does not
satisfy the requirement of this paragraph (e)(2)(vi)(A). Whether a
stock option grant is based solely on an increase in the value of the
stock after the date of grant is determined without regard to any
dividend equivalent that may be payable, provided that payment of the
dividend equivalent is not made contingent on the exercise of the
option. The rule that the compensation attributable to a stock option
or stock appreciation right must be based solely on an increase in the
value of the stock after the date of grant or award does not apply if
the grant or award is made on account of, or if the vesting or
exercisability of the grant or award is contingent on, the attainment
of a performance goal that satisfies the requirements of this paragraph
(e)(2).
(B) Cancellation and repricing. Compensation attributable to a
stock option or stock appreciation right does not satisfy the
requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) to the extent that the number of
options granted exceeds the maximum number of shares for which options
may be granted to the employee as specified in the plan. If an option
is canceled, the canceled option continues to be counted against the
maximum number of shares for which options may be granted to the
employee under the plan. If, after grant, the exercise price of an
option is reduced, the transaction is treated as a cancellation of the
option and a grant of a new option. In such case, both the option that
is deemed to be canceled and the option that is deemed to be granted
reduce the maximum number of shares for which options may be granted to
the employee under the plan. This paragraph (e)(2)(vi)(B) also applies
in the case of a stock appreciation right where, after the award is
made, the base amount on which stock appreciation is calculated is
reduced to reflect a reduction in the fair market value of stock.
(vii) Examples. This paragraph (e)(2) may be illustrated by the
following examples:
Example 1. No later than 90 days after the start of a fiscal
year, but while the outcome is substantially uncertain, Corporation
S establishes a bonus plan under which A, the chief executive
officer, will receive a cash bonus of $500,000, if year-end
corporate sales are increased by at least 5 percent. The
compensation committee retains the right, if the performance goal is
met, to reduce the bonus payment to A if, in its judgment, other
subjective factors warrant a reduction. The bonus will meet the
requirements of this paragraph (e)(2).
Example 2. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that
the bonus is based on a percentage of Corporation S's total sales
for the fiscal year. Because Corporation S is virtually certain to
have some sales for the fiscal year, the outcome of the performance
goal is not substantially uncertain, and therefore the bonus does
not meet the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2).
Example 3. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that
the bonus is based on a percentage of Corporation S's total profits
for the fiscal year. Although some sales are virtually certain for
virtually all public companies, it is substantially uncertain
whether a company will have profits for a specified future period
even if the company has a history of profitability. Therefore, the
bonus will meet the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2).
Example 4. B is the general counsel of Corporation R, which is
engaged in patent litigation with Corporation S. Representatives of
Corporation S have informally indicated to Corporation R a
willingness to settle the litigation for $50,000,000. Subsequently,
the compensation committee of Corporation R agrees to pay B a bonus
if B obtains a formal settlement for at least $50,000,000. The bonus
to B does not meet the requirement of this paragraph (e)(2) because
the performance goal was not established at a time when the outcome
was substantially uncertain.
Example 5. Corporation S, a public utility, adopts a bonus plan
for selected salaried employees that will pay a bonus at the end of
a 3-year period of $750,000 each if, at the end of the 3 years, the
price of S stock has increased by 10 percent. The plan also provides
that the 10-percent goal will automatically adjust upward or
downward by the percentage change in a published utilities index.
Thus, for example, if the published utilities index shows a net
increase of 5 percent over a 3-year period, then the salaried
employees would receive a bonus only if Corporation S stock has
increased by 15 percent. Conversely, if the published utilities
index shows a net decrease of 5 percent over a 3-year period, then
the salaried employees would receive a bonus if Corporation S stock
has increased by 5 percent. Because these automatic adjustments in
the performance goal are preestablished, the bonus meets the
requirement of this paragraph (e)(2), notwithstanding the potential
changes in the performance goal.
Example 6. The facts are the same as in Example 5, except that
the bonus plan provides that, at the end of the 3-year period, a
bonus of $750,000 will be paid to each salaried employee if either
the price of Corporation S stock has increased by 10 percent or the
earnings per share on Corporation S stock have increased by 5
percent. If both the earnings-per-share goal and the stock-price
goal are preestablished, the compensation committee's discretion to
choose to pay a bonus under either of the two goals does not cause
any bonus paid under the plan to fail to meet the requirement of
this paragraph (e)(2) because each goal independently meets the
requirements of this paragraph (e)(2). The choice to pay under
either of the two goals is tantamount to the discretion to choose
not to pay under one of the goals, as provided in paragraph
(e)(2)(iii) of this section.
Example 7. Corporation U establishes a bonus plan under which a
specified class of employees will participate in a bonus pool if
certain preestablished performance goals are attained. The amount of
the bonus pool is determined under an objective formula. Under the
terms of the bonus plan, the compensation committee retains the
discretion to determine the fraction of the bonus pool that each
employee may receive.
[[Page 65541]]
The bonus plan does not satisfy the requirements of this paragraph
(e)(2). Although the aggregate amount of the bonus plan is
determined under an objective formula, a third party could not
determine the amount that any individual could receive under the
plan.
Example 8. The facts are the same as in Example 7, except that
the bonus plan provides that a specified share of the bonus pool is
payable to each employee, and the total of these shares does not
exceed 100% of the pool. The bonus plan satisfies the requirements
of this paragraph (e)(2). In addition, the bonus plan will satisfy
the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) even if the compensation
committee retains the discretion to reduce the compensation payable
to any individual employee, provided that a reduction in the amount
of one employee's bonus does not result in an increase in the amount
of any other employee's bonus.
Example 9. Corporation V establishes a stock option plan for
salaried employees. The terms of the stock option plan specify that
no salaried employee shall receive options for more than 100,000
shares over any 3-year period. The compensation committee grants
options for 50,000 shares to each of several salaried employees. The
exercise price of each option is equal to or greater than the fair
market value at the time of each grant. Compensation attributable to
the exercise of the options satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (e)(2). If, however, the terms of the options provide that
the exercise price is less than fair market value at the date of
grant, no compensation attributable to the exercise of those options
satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) unless issuance
or exercise of the options was contingent upon the attainment of a
preestablished performance goal that satisfies this paragraph
(e)(2).
Example 10. The facts are the same as in Example 9, except that,
within the same 3-year grant period, the fair market value of
Corporation V stock is significantly less than the exercise price of
the options. The compensation committee reprices those options to
that lower current fair market value of Corporation V stock. The
repricing of the options for 50,000 shares held by each salaried
employee is treated as the grant of new options for an additional
50,000 shares to each employee. Thus, each of the salaried employees
is treated as having received grants for 100,000 shares.
Consequently, if any additional options are granted to those
employees during the 3-year period, compensation attributable to the
exercise of those additional options would not satisfy the
requirements of this paragraph (e)(2). The results would be the same
if the compensation committee canceled the outstanding options and
issued new options to the same employees that were exercisable at
the fair market value of Corporation V stock on the date of reissue.
Example 11. Corporation W maintains a plan under which each
participating employee may receive incentive stock options,
nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, or grants of
restricted Corporation W stock. The plan specifies that each
participating employee may receive options, stock appreciation
rights, restricted stock, or any combination of each, for no more
than 20,000 shares over the life of the plan. The plan provides that
stock options may be granted with an exercise price of less than,
equal to, or greater than fair market value on the date of grant.
Options granted with an exercise price equal to, or greater than,
fair market value on the date of grant do not fail to meet the
requirements of this paragraph (e)(2) merely because the
compensation committee has the discretion to determine the types of
awards (i.e., options, rights, or restricted stock) to be granted to
each employee or the discretion to issue options or make other
compensation awards under the plan that would not meet the
requirements of this paragraph (e)(2). Whether an option granted
under the plan satisfies the requirements of this paragraph (e)(2)
is determined on the basis of the specific terms of the option and
without regard to other options or awards under the plan.
Example 12. Corporation X maintains a plan under which stock
appreciation rights may be awarded to key employees. The plan
permits the compensation committee to make awards under which the
amount of compensation payable to the employee is equal to the
increase in the stock price plus a percentage ``gross up'' intended
to offset the tax liability of the employee. In addition, the plan
permits the compensation committee to make awards under which the
amount of compensation payable to the employee is equal to the
increase in the stock price, based on the highest price, which is
defined as the highest price paid for Corporation X stock (or
offered in a tender offer or other arms-length offer) during the 90
days preceding exercise. Compensation attributable to awards under
the plan satisfies the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this
section, provided that the terms of the plan specify the maximum
number of shares for which awards may be made.
Example 13. Corporation W adopts a plan under which a bonus will
be paid to the CEO only if there is a 10% increase in earnings per
share during the performance period. The plan provides that earnings
per share will be calculated without regard to any change in
accounting standards that may be required by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board after the goal is established. After the
goal is established, such a change in accounting standards occurs.
Corporation W's reported earnings, for purposes of determining
earnings per share under the plan, are adjusted pursuant to this
plan provision to factor out this change in standards. This
adjustment will not be considered an exercise of impermissible
discretion because it is made pursuant to the plan provision.
Example 14. Corporation X adopts a performance-based incentive
pay plan with a four-year performance period. Bonuses under the plan
are scheduled to be paid in the first year after the end of the
performance period (year 5). However, in the second year of the
performance period, the compensation committee determines that any
bonuses payable in year 5 will instead, for bona fide business
reasons, be paid in year 10. The compensation committee also
determines that any compensation that would have been payable in
year 5 will be adjusted to reflect the delay in payment. The
adjustment will be based on the greater of the future rate of return
of a specified mutual fund that invests in blue chip stocks or of a
specified venture capital investment over the five-year deferral
period. Each of these investments, considered by itself, is a
predetermined actual investment because it is based on the future
rate of return of an actual investment. However, the adjustment in
this case is not based on predetermined actual investments within
the meaning of paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) of this section because the
amount payable by Corporation X in year 10 will be based on the
greater of the two investment returns and, thus, will not be based
on the actual rate of return on either specific investment.
Example 15. The facts are the same as in Example 14, except that
the increase will be based on Moody's Average Corporate Bond Yield
over the five-year deferral period. Because this index reflects a
reasonable rate of interest, the increase in the compensation
payable that is based on the index's rate of return is not
considered an impermissible increase in the amount of compensation
payable under the formula.
Example 16. The facts are the same as in Example 14, except that
the increase will be based on the rate of return for the Standard &
Poor's 500 Index. This index does not measure interest rates and
thus does not represent a reasonable rate of interest. In addition,
this index does not represent an actual investment. Therefore, any
additional compensation payable based on the rate of return of this
index will result in an impermissible increase in the amount payable
under the formula. If, in contrast, the increase were based on the
rate of return of an existing mutual fund that is invested in a
manner that seeks to approximate the Standard & Poor's 500 Index,
the increase would be based on a predetermined actual investment
within the meaning of paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) of this section and
thus would not result in an impermissible increase in the amount
payable under the formula.
(3) Outside directors--(i) General rule. The performance goal under
which compensation is paid must be established by a compensation
committee comprised solely of two or more outside directors. A director
is an outside director if the director--
(A) Is not a current employee of the publicly held corporation;
(B) Is not a former employee of the publicly held corporation who
receives compensation for prior services (other than benefits under a
tax-qualified retirement plan) during the taxable year;
(C) Has not been an officer of the publicly held corporation; and
(D) Does not receive remuneration from the publicly held
corporation, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity other than
as a director. For this purpose, remuneration includes any payment in
exchange for goods or services.
[[Page 65542]]
(ii) Remuneration received. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(3),
remuneration is received, directly or indirectly, by a director in each
of the following circumstances:
(A) If remuneration is paid, directly or indirectly, to the
director personally or to an entity in which the director has a
beneficial ownership interest of greater than 50 percent. For this
purpose, remuneration is considered paid when actually paid (and
throughout the remainder of that taxable year of the corporation) and,
if earlier, throughout the period when a contract or agreement to pay
remuneration is outstanding.
(B) If remuneration, other than de minimis remuneration, was paid
by the publicly held corporation in its preceding taxable year to an
entity in which the director has a beneficial ownership interest of at
least 5 percent but not more than 50 percent. For this purpose,
remuneration is considered paid when actually paid or, if earlier, when
the publicly held corporation becomes liable to pay it.
(C) If remuneration, other than de minimis remuneration, was paid
by the publicly held corporation in its preceding taxable year to an
entity by which the director is employed or self-employed other than as
a director. For this purpose, remuneration is considered paid when
actually paid or, if earlier, when the publicly held corporation
becomes liable to pay it.
(iii) De minimis remuneration--(A) In general. For purposes of
paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section, remuneration that was
paid by the publicly held corporation in its preceding taxable year to
an entity is de minimis if payments to the entity did not exceed 5
percent of the gross revenue of the entity for its taxable year ending
with or within that preceding taxable year of the publicly held
corporation.
(B) Remuneration for personal services and substantial owners.
Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) of this section, remuneration
in excess of $60,000 is not de minimis if the remuneration is paid to
an entity described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, or is
paid for personal services to an entity described in paragraph
(e)(3)(ii)(C) of this section.
(iv) Remuneration for personal services. For purposes of paragraph
(e)(3)(iii)(B) of this section, remuneration from a publicly held
corporation is for personal services if--
(A) The remuneration is paid to an entity for personal or
professional services, consisting of legal, accounting, investment
banking, and management consulting services (and other similar services
that may be specified by the Commissioner in revenue rulings, notices,
or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin),
performed for the publicly held corporation, and the remuneration is
not for services that are incidental to the purchase of goods or to the
purchase of services that are not personal services; and
(B) The director performs significant services (whether or not as
an employee) for the corporation, division, or similar organization
(within the entity) that actually provides the services described in
paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(A) of this section to the publicly held
corporation, or more than 50 percent of the entity's gross revenues
(for the entity's preceding taxable year) are derived from that
corporation, subsidiary, or similar organization.
(v) Entity defined. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(3), entity
means an organization that is a sole proprietorship, trust, estate,
partnership, or corporation. The term also includes an affiliated group
of corporations as defined in section 1504 (determined without regard
to section 1504(b)) and a group of organizations that would be an
affiliated group but for the fact that one or more of the organizations
are not incorporated. However, the aggregation rules referred to in the
preceding sentence do not apply for purposes of determining whether a
director has a beneficial ownership interest of at least 5 percent or
greater than 50 percent.
(vi) Employees and former officers. Whether a director is an
employee or a former officer is determined on the basis of the facts at
the time that the individual is serving as a director on the
compensation committee. Thus, a director is not precluded from being an
outside director solely because the director is a former officer of a
corporation that previously was an affiliated corporation of the
publicly held corporation. For example, a director of a parent
corporation of an affiliated group is not precluded from being an
outside director solely because that director is a former officer of an
affiliated subsidiary that was spun off or liquidated. However, an
outside director would no longer be an outside director if a
corporation in which the director was previously an officer became an
affiliated corporation of the publicly held corporation.
(vii) Officer. Solely for purposes of this paragraph (e)(3),
officer means an administrative executive who is or was in regular and
continued service. The term implies continuity of service and excludes
those employed for a special and single transaction. An individual who
merely has (or had) the title of officer but not the authority of an
officer is not considered an officer. The determination of whether an
individual is or was an officer is based on all of the facts and
circumstances in the particular case, including without limitation the
source of the individual's authority, the term for which the individual
is elected or appointed, and the nature and extent of the individual's
duties.
(viii) Members of affiliated groups. For purposes of this paragraph
(e)(3), the outside directors of the publicly held member of an
affiliated group are treated as the outside directors of all members of
the affiliated group.
(ix) Examples. This paragraph (e)(3) may be illustrated by the
following examples:
Example 1. Corporations X and Y are members of an affiliated
group of corporations as defined in section 1504, until July 1,
1994, when Y is sold to another group. Prior to the sale, A served
as an officer of Corporation Y. After July 1, 1994, A is not treated
as a former officer of Corporation X by reason of having been an
officer of Y.
Example 2. Corporation Z, a calendar-year taxpayer, uses the
services of a law firm by which B is employed, but in which B has a
less-than-5-percent ownership interest. The law firm reports income
on a July 1 to June 30 basis. Corporation Z appoints B to serve on
its compensation committee for calendar year 1998 after determining
that, in calendar year 1997, it did not become liable to the law
firm for remuneration exceeding the lesser of $60,000 or five
percent of the law firm's gross revenue (calculated for the year
ending June 30, 1997). On October 1, 1998, Corporation Z becomes
liable to pay remuneration of $50,000 to the law firm on June 30,
1999. For the year ending June 30, 1998, the law firm's gross
revenue was less than $1 million. Thus, in calendar year 1999, B is
not an outside director. However, B may satisfy the requirements for
an outside director in calendar year 2000, if, in calendar year
1999, Corporation Z does not become liable to the law firm for
additional remuneration. This is because the remuneration actually
paid on June 30, 1999 was considered paid on October 1, 1998 under
paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(C) of this section.
Example 3. Corporation Z, a publicly held corporation, purchases
goods from Corporation A. D, an executive and less- than-5-percent
owner of Corporation A, sits on the board of directors of
Corporation Z and on its compensation committee. For 1997,
Corporation Z obtains representations to the effect that D is not
eligible for any commission for D's sales to Corporation Z and that,
for purposes of determining D's compensation for 1997, Corporation
A's sales to Corporation Z are not otherwise treated differently
than sales to other customers of Corporation A (including its
affiliates, if any) or are irrelevant. In addition, Corporation Z
has no reason to believe that these representations are inaccurate
or that it is otherwise paying remuneration indirectly to D
personally. Thus, in 1997, no remuneration
[[Page 65543]]
is considered paid by Corporation Z indirectly to D personally under
paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
Example 4. (i) Corporation W, a publicly held corporation,
purchases goods from Corporation T. C, an executive and less- than-
5-percent owner of Corporation T, sits on the board of directors of
Corporation W and on its compensation committee. Corporation T
develops a new product and agrees on January 1, 1998 to pay C a
bonus of $500,000 if Corporation W contracts to purchase the
product. Even if Corporation W purchases the new product, sales to
Corporation W will represent less than 5 percent of Corporation T's
gross revenues. In 1999, Corporation W contracts to purchase the new
product and, in 2000, C receives the $500,000 bonus from Corporation
T. In 1998, 1999, and 2000, Corporation W does not obtain any
representations relating to indirect remuneration to C personally
(such as the representations described in Example 3).
(ii) Thus, in 1998, 1999, and 2000, remuneration is considered
paid by Corporation W indirectly to C personally under paragraph
(e)(3)(ii)(A) of this section. Accordingly, in 1998, 1999, and 2000,
C is not an outside director of Corporation W. The result would have
been the same if Corporation W had obtained appropriate
representations but nevertheless had reason to believe that it was
paying remuneration indirectly to C personally.
Example 5. Corporation R, a publicly held corporation, purchases
utility service from Corporation Q, a public utility. The chief
executive officer, and less-than-5-percent owner, of Corporation Q
is a director of Corporation R. Corporation R pays Corporation Q
more than $60,000 per year for the utility service, but less than 5
percent of Corporation Q's gross revenues. Because utility services
are not personal services, the fees paid are not subject to the
$60,000 de minimis rule for remuneration for personal services
within the meaning of paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(B) of this section.
Thus, the chief executive officer qualifies as an outside director
of Corporation R, unless disqualified on some other basis.
Example 6. Corporation A, a publicly held corporation, purchases
management consulting services from Division S of Conglomerate P.
The chief financial officer of Division S is a director of
Corporation A. Corporation A pays more than $60,000 per year for the
management consulting services, but less than 5 percent of
Conglomerate P's gross revenues. Because management consulting
services are personal services within the meaning of paragraph
(e)(3)(iv)(A) of this section, and the chief financial officer
performs significant services for Division S, the fees paid are
subject to the $60,000 de minimis rule as remuneration for personal
services. Thus, the chief financial officer does not qualify as an
outside director of Corporation A.
Example 7. The facts are the same as in Example 6, except that
the chief executive officer, and less-than-5-percent owner, of the
parent company of Conglomerate P is a director of Corporation A and
does not perform significant services for Division S. If the gross
revenues of Division S do not constitute more than 50 percent of the
gross revenues of Conglomerate P for P's preceding taxable year, the
chief executive officer will qualify as an outside director of
Corporation A, unless disqualified on some other basis.
(4) Shareholder approval requirement--(i) General rule. The
material terms of the performance goal under which the compensation is
to be paid must be disclosed to and subsequently approved by the
shareholders of the publicly held corporation before the compensation
is paid. The requirements of this paragraph (e)(4) are not satisfied if
the compensation would be paid regardless of whether the material terms
are approved by shareholders. The material terms include the employees
eligible to receive compensation; a description of the business
criteria on which the performance goal is based; and either the maximum
amount of compensation that could be paid to any employee or the
formula used to calculate the amount of compensation to be paid to the
employee if the performance goal is attained (except that, in the case
of a formula that fails to preclude discretion to increase the amount
of compensation (as described in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(A) of this
section) merely because the amount of compensation to be paid is based,
in whole or in part, on a percentage of salary or base pay and the
dollar amount of the salary or base pay is not fixed at the time the
performance goal is established, the maximum dollar amount of
compensation that could be paid to the employee must be disclosed).
(ii) Eligible employees. Disclosure of the employees eligible to
receive compensation need not be so specific as to identify the
particular individuals by name. A general description of the class of
eligible employees by title or class is sufficient, such as the chief
executive officer and vice presidents, or all salaried employees, all
executive officers, or all key employees.
(iii) Description of business criteria--(A) In general. Disclosure
of the business criteria on which the performance goal is based need
not include the specific targets that must be satisfied under the
performance goal. For example, if a bonus plan provides that a bonus
will be paid if earnings per share increase by 10 percent, the 10-
percent figure is a target that need not be disclosed to shareholders.
However, in that case, disclosure must be made that the bonus plan is
based on an earnings-per-share business criterion. In the case of a
plan under which employees may be granted stock options or stock
appreciation rights, no specific description of the business criteria
is required if the grants or awards are based on a stock price that is
no less than current fair market value.
(B) Disclosure of confidential information. The requirements of
this paragraph (e)(4) may be satisfied even though information that
otherwise would be a material term of a performance goal is not
disclosed to shareholders, provided that the compensation committee
determines that the information is confidential commercial or business
information, the disclosure of which would have an adverse effect on
the publicly held corporation. Whether disclosure would adversely
affect the corporation is determined on the basis of the facts and
circumstances. If the compensation committee makes such a
determination, the disclosure to shareholders must state the
compensation committee's belief that the information is confidential
commercial or business information, the disclosure of which would
adversely affect the company. In addition, the ability not to disclose
confidential information does not eliminate the requirement that
disclosure be made of the maximum amount of compensation that is
payable to an individual under a performance goal. Confidential
information does not include the identity of an executive or the class
of executives to which a performance goal applies or the amount of
compensation that is payable if the goal is satisfied.
(iv) Description of compensation. Disclosure as to the compensation
payable under a performance goal must be specific enough so that
shareholders can determine the maximum amount of compensation that
could be paid to any employee during a specified period. If the terms
of the performance goal do not provide for a maximum dollar amount, the
disclosure must include the formula under which the compensation would
be calculated. Thus, for
FR Doc. 95-30869 Disallowance of Deductions for Employee Remuneration in Excess of $1,000,000
example, if compensation attributable to the
exercise of stock options is equal to the difference in the exercise
price and the current value of the stock, disclosure would be required
of the maximum number of shares for which grants may be made to any
employee and the exercise price of those options (e.g., fair market
value on date of grant). In that case, shareholders could calculate the
maximum amount of compensation that would be attributable to the
exercise of options on the basis of their assumptions as to the future
stock price.
(v) Disclosure requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. To the extent not otherwise specifically provided in this
paragraph (e)(4), whether the material terms of a
[[Page 65544]]
performance goal are adequately disclosed to shareholders is determined
under the same standards as apply under the Exchange Act.
(vi) Frequency of disclosure. Once the material terms of a
performance goal are disclosed to and approved by shareholders, no
additional disclosure or approval is required unless the compensation
committee changes the material terms of the performance goal. If,
however, the compensation committee has authority to change the targets
under a performance goal after shareholder approval of the goal,
material terms of the performance goal must be disclosed to and
reapproved by shareholders no later than the first shareholder meeting
that occurs in the fifth year following the year in which shareholders
previously approved the performance goal.
(vii) Shareholder vote. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(4), the
material terms of a performance goal are approved by shareholders if,
in a separate vote, a majority of the votes cast on the issue
(including abstentions to the extent abstentions are counted as voting
under applicable state law) are cast in favor of approval.
(viii) Members of affiliated group. For purposes of this paragraph
(e)(4), the shareholders of the publicly held member of the affiliated
group are treated as the shareholders of all members of the affiliated
group.
(ix) Examples. This paragraph (e)(4) may be illustrated by the
following examples:
Example 1. Corporation X adopts a plan that will pay a specified
class of its executives an annual cash bonus based on the overall
increase in corporate sales during the year. Under the terms of the
plan, the cash bonus of each executive equals $100,000 multiplied by
the number of percentage points by which sales increase in the
current year when compared to the prior year. Corporation X
discloses to its shareholders prior to the vote both the class of
executives eligible to receive awards and the annual formula of
$100,000 multiplied by the percentage increase in sales. This
disclosure meets the requirements of this paragraph (e)(4). Because
the compensation committee does not have the authority to establish
a different target under the plan, Corporation X need not redisclose
to its shareholders and obtain their reapproval of the material
terms of the plan until those material terms are changed.
Example 2. The facts are the same as in Example 1 except that
Corporation X discloses only that bonuses will be paid on the basis
of the annual increase in sales. This disclosure does not meet the
requirements of this paragraph (e)(4) because it does not include
the formula for calculating the compensation or a maximum amount of
compensation to be paid if the performance goal is satisfied.
Example 3. Corporation Y adopts an incentive compensation plan
in 1995 that will pay a specified class of its executives a bonus
every 3 years based on the following 3 factors: increases in
earnings per share, reduction in costs for specified divisions, and
increases in sales by specified divisions. The bonus is payable in
cash or in Corporation Y stock, at the option of the executive.
Under the terms of the plan, prior to the beginning of each 3-year
period, the compensation committee determines the specific targets
under each of the three factors (i.e., the amount of the increase in
earnings per share, the reduction in costs, and the amount of sales)
that must be met in order for the executives to receive a bonus.
Under the terms of the plan, the compensation committee retains the
discretion to determine whether a bonus will be paid under any one
of the goals. The terms of the plan also specify that no executive
may receive a bonus in excess of $1,500,000 for any 3-year period.
To satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (e)(4), Corporation Y
obtains shareholder approval of the plan at its 1995 annual
shareholder meeting. In the proxy statement issued to shareholders,
Corporation Y need not disclose to shareholders the specific targets
that are set by the compensation committee. However, Corporation Y
must disclose that bonuses are paid on the basis of earnings per
share, reductions in costs, and increases in sales of specified
divisions. Corporation Y also must disclose the maximum amount of
compensation that any executive may receive under the plan is
$1,500,000 per 3-year period. Unless changes in the material terms
of the plan are made earlier, Corporation Y need not disclose the
material terms of the plan to the shareholders and obtain their
reapproval until the first shareholders' meeting held in 2000.
Example 4. The same facts as in Example 3, except that prior to
the beginning of the second 3-year period, the compensation
committee determines that different targets will be set under the
plan for that period with regard to all three of the performance
criteria (i.e., earnings per share, reductions in costs, and
increases in sales). In addition, the compensation committee raises
the maximum dollar amount that can be paid under the plan for a 3-
year period to $2,000,000. The increase in the maximum dollar amount
of compensation under the plan is a changed material term. Thus, to
satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (e)(4), Corporation Y
must disclose to and obtain approval by the shareholders of the plan
as amended.
Example 5. In 1998, Corporation Z establishes a plan under which
a specified group of executives will receive a cash bonus not to
exceed $750,000 each if a new product that has been in development
is completed and ready for sale to customers by January 1, 2000.
Although the completion of the new product is a material term of the
performance goal under this paragraph (e)(4), the compensation
committee determines that the disclosure to shareholders of the
performance goal would adversely affect Corporation Z because its
competitors would be made aware of the existence and timing of its
new product. In this case, the requirements of this paragraph (e)(4)
are satisfied if all other material terms, including the maximum
amount of compensation, are disclosed and the disclosure
affirmatively states that the terms of the performance goal are not
being disclosed because the compensation committee has determined
that those terms include confidential information, the disclosure of
which would adversely affect Corporation Z.
(5) Compensation committee certification. The compensation
committee must certify in writing prior to payment of the compensation
that the performance goals and any other material terms were in fact
satisfied. For this purpose, approved minutes of the compensation
committee meeting in which the certification is made are treated as a
written certification. Certification by the compensation committee is
not required for compensation that is attributable solely to the
increase in the stock of the publicly held corporation.
(f) Companies that become publicly held, spinoffs, and similar
transactions--(1) In general. In the case of a corporation that was not
a publicly held corporation and then becomes a publicly held
corporation, the deduction limit of paragraph (b) of this section does
not apply to any remuneration paid pursuant to a compensation plan or
agreement that existed during the period in which the corporation was
not publicly held. However, in the case of such a corporation that
becomes publicly held in connection with an initial public offering,
this relief applies only to the extent that the prospectus accompanying
the initial public offering disclosed information concerning those
plans or agreements that satisfied all applicable securities laws then
in effect. In accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, a
corporation that is a member of an affiliated group that includes a
publicly held corporation is considered publicly held and, therefore,
cannot rely on this paragraph (f)(1).
(2) Reliance period. Paragraph (f)(1) of this section may be relied
upon until the earliest of--
(i) The expiration of the plan or agreement;
(ii) The material modification of the plan or agreement, within the
meaning of paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of this section;
(iii) The issuance of all employer stock and other compensation
that has been allocated under the plan; or
(iv) The first meeting of shareholders at which directors are to be
elected that occurs after the close of the third calendar year
following the calendar year in which the initial public offering
[[Page 65545]]
occurs or, in the case of a privately held corporation that becomes
publicly held without an initial public offering, the first calendar
year following the calendar year in which the corporation becomes
publicly held.
(3) Stock-based compensation. Paragraph (f)(1) of this section will
apply to any compensation received pursuant to the exercise of a stock
option or stock appreciation right, or the substantial vesting of
restricted property, granted under a plan or agreement described in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section if the grant occurs on or before the
earliest of the events specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(4) Subsidiaries that become separate publicly held corporations--
(i) In general. If a subsidiary that is a member of the affiliated
group described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section becomes a
separate publicly held corporation (whether by spinoff or otherwise),
any remuneration paid to covered employees of the new publicly held
corporation will satisfy the exception for performance-based
compensation described in paragraph (e) of this section if the
conditions in either paragraph (f)(4)(ii) or (f)(4)(iii) of this
section are satisfied.
(ii) Prior establishment and approval. Remuneration satisfies the
requirements of this paragraph (f)(4)(ii) if the remuneration satisfies
the requirements for performance-based compensation set forth in
paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4) of this section (by application
of paragraphs (e)(3)(viii) and (e)(4)(viii) of this section) before the
corporation becomes a separate publicly held corporation, and the
certification required by paragraph (e)(5) of this section is made by
the compensation committee of the new publicly held corporation (but if
the performance goals are attained before the corporation becomes a
separate publicly held corporation, the certification may be made by
the compensation committee referred to in paragraph (e)(3)(viii) of
this section before it becomes a separate publicly held corporation).
Thus, this paragraph (f)(4)(ii) requires that the outside directors and
shareholders (within the meaning of paragraphs (e)(3)(viii) and
(e)(4)(viii) of this section) of the corporation before it becomes a
separate publicly held corporation establish and approve, respectively,
the performance-based compensation for the covered employees of the new
publicly held corporation in accordance with paragraphs (e)(3) and
(e)(4) of this section.
(iii) Transition period. Remuneration satisfies the requirements of
this paragraph (f)(4)(iii) if the remuneration satisfies all of the
requirements of paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(5) of this section.
The outside directors (within the meaning of paragraph (e)(3)(viii) of
this section) of the corporation before it becomes a separate publicly
held corporation, or the outside directors of the new publicly held
corporation, may establish and administer the performance goals for the
covered employees of the new publicly held corporation for purposes of
satisfying the requirements of paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this
section. The certification required by paragraph (e)(5) of this section
must be made by the compensation committee of the new publicly held
corporation. However, a taxpayer may rely on this paragraph (f)(4)(iii)
to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section only for
compensation paid, or stock options, stock appreciation rights, or
restricted property granted, prior to the first regularly scheduled
meeting of the shareholders of the new publicly held corporation that
occurs more than 12 months after the date the corporation becomes a
separate publicly held corporation. Compensation paid, or stock
options, stock appreciation rights, or restricted property granted, on
or after the date of that meeting of shareholders must satisfy all
requirements of paragraph (e) of this section, including the
shareholder approval requirement of paragraph (e)(4) of this section,
in order to satisfy the requirements for performance-based
compensation.
(5) Example. The following example illustrates the application of
paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this section:
Example. Corporation P, which is publicly held, decides to spin
off Corporation S, a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporation P. After
the spinoff, Corporation S will be a separate publicly held
corporation. Before the spinoff, the compensation committee of
Corporation P, pursuant to paragraph (e)(3)(viii) of this section,
establishes a bonus plan for the executives of Corporation S that
provides for bonuses payable after the spinoff and that satisfies
the requirements of paragraph (e)(2) of this section. If, pursuant
to paragraph (e)(4)(viii) of this section, the shareholders of
Corporation P approve the plan prior to the spinoff, that approval
will satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e)(4) of this section
with respect to compensation paid pursuant to the bonus plan after
the spinoff. However, the compensation committee of Corporation S
will be required to certify that the goals are satisfied prior to
the payment of the bonuses in order for the bonuses to be considered
performance-based compensation.
(g) Coordination with disallowed excess parachute payments. The
$1,000,000 limitation in paragraph (b) of this section is reduced (but
not below zero) by the amount (if any) that would have been included in
the compensation of the covered employee for the taxable year but for
being disallowed by reason of section 280G. For example, assume that
during a taxable year a corporation pays $1,500,000 to a covered
employee and no portion satisfies the exception in paragraph (d) of
this section for commissions or paragraph (e) of this section for
qualified performance-based compensation. Of the $1,500,000, $600,000
is an excess parachute payment, as defined in section 280G(b)(1) and is
disallowed by reason of that section. Because the excess parachute
payment reduces the limitation of paragraph (b) of this section, the
corporation can deduct $400,000, and $500,000 of the otherwise
deductible amount is nondeductible by reason of section 162(m).
(h) Transition rules--(1) Compensation payable under a written
binding contract which was in effect on February 17, 1993--(i) General
rule. The deduction limit of paragraph (b) of this section does not
apply to any compensation payable under a written binding contract that
was in effect on February 17, 1993. The preceding sentence does not
apply unless, under applicable state law, the corporation is obligated
to pay the compensation if the employee performs services. However, the
deduction limit of paragraph (b) of this section does apply to a
contract that is renewed after February 17, 1993. A written binding
contract that is terminable or cancelable by the corporation after
February 17, 1993, without the employee's consent is treated as a new
contract as of the date that any such termination or cancellation, if
made, would be effective. Thus, for example, if the terms of a contract
provide that it will be automatically renewed as of a certain date
unless either the corporation or the employee gives notice of
termination of the contract at least 30 days before that date, the
contract is treated as a new contract as of the date that termination
would be effective if that notice were given. Similarly, for example,
if the terms of a contract provide that the contract will be terminated
or canceled as of a certain date unless either the corporation or the
employee elects to renew within 30 days of that date, the contract is
treated as renewed by the corporation as of that date. Alternatively,
if the corporation will remain legally obligated by the terms of a
contract beyond a certain date at the sole discretion of the employee,
the
[[Page 65546]]
contract will not be treated as a new contract as of that date if the
employee exercises the discretion to keep the corporation bound to the
contract. A contract is not treated as terminable or cancelable if it
can be terminated or canceled only by terminating the employment
relationship of the employee.
(ii) Compensation payable under a plan or arrangement. If a
compensation plan or arrangement meets the requirements of paragraph
(h)(1)(i) of this section, the compensation paid to an employee
pursuant to the plan or arrangement will not be subject to the
deduction limit of paragraph (b) of this section even though the
employee was not eligible to participate in the plan as of February 17,
1993. However, the preceding sentence does not apply unless the
employee was employed on February 17, 1993, by the corporation that
maintained the plan or arrangement, or the employee had the right to
participate in the plan or arrangement under a written binding contract
as of that date.
(iii) Material modifications.
(A) Paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section will not apply to any
written binding contract that is materially modified. A material
modification occurs when the contract is amended to increase the amount
of compensation payable to the employee. If a binding written contract
is materially modified, it is treated as a new contract entered into as
of the date of the material modification. Thus, amounts received by an
employee under the contract prior to a material modification are not
affected, but amounts received subsequent to the material modification
are not treated as paid under a binding, written contract described in
paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section.
(B) A modification of the contract that accelerates the payment of
compensation will be treated as a material modification unless the
amount of compensation paid is discounted to reasonably reflect the
time value of money. If the contract is modified to defer the payment
of compensation, any compensation paid in excess of the amount that was
originally payable to the employee under the contract will not be
treated as a material modification if the additional amount is based on
either a reasonable rate of interest or one or more predetermined
actual investments (whether or not assets associated with the amount
originally owed are actually invested therein) such that the amount
payable by the employer at the later date will be based on the actual
rate of return of the specific investment (including any decrease as
well as any increase in the value of the investment).
(C) The adoption of a supplemental contract or agreement that
provides for increased compensation, or the payment of additional
compensation, is a material modification of a binding, written contract
where the facts and circumstances show that the additional compensation
is paid on the basis of substantially the same elements or conditions
as the compensation that is otherwise paid under the written binding
contract. However, a material modification of a written binding
contract does not include a supplemental payment that is equal to or
less than a reasonable cost-of-living increase over the payment made in
the preceding year under that written binding contract. In addition, a
supplemental payment of compensation that satisfies the requirements of
qualified performance-based compensation in paragraph (e) of this
section will not be treated as a material modification.
(iv) Examples. The following examples illustrate the exception of
this paragraph (h)(1):
Example 1. Corporation X executed a 3-year compensation
arrangement with C on February 15, 1993, that constitutes a written
binding contract under applicable state law. The terms of the
arrangement provide for automatic extension after the 3-year term
for additional 1-year periods, unless the corporation exercises its
option to terminate the arrangement within 30 days of the end of the
3-year term or, thereafter, within 30 days before each anniversary
date. Termination of the compensation arrangement does not require
the termination of C's employment relationship with Corporation X.
Unless terminated, the arrangement is treated as renewed on February
15, 1996, and the deduction limit of paragraph (b) of this section
applies to payments under the arrangement after that date.
Example 2. Corporation Y executed a 5-year employment agreement
with B on January 1, 1992, providing for a salary of $900,000 per
year. Assume that this agreement constitutes a written binding
contract under applicable state law. In 1992 and 1993, B receives
the salary of $900,000 per year. In 1994, Corporation Y increases
B's salary with a payment of $20,000. The $20,000 supplemental
payment does not constitute a material modification of the written
binding contract because the $20,000 payment is less than or equal
to a reasonable cost-of-living increase from 1993. However, the
$20,000 supplemental payment is subject to the limitation in
paragraph (b) of this section. On January 1, 1995, Corporation Y
increases B's salary to $1,200,000. The $280,000 supplemental
payment is a material modification of the written binding contract
because the additional compensation is paid on the basis of
substantially the same elements or conditions as the compensation
that is otherwise paid under the written binding contract and it is
greater than a reasonable, annual cost-of-living increase. Because
the written binding contract is materially modified as of January 1,
1995, all compensation paid to B in 1995 and thereafter is subject
to the deduction limitation of section 162(m).
Example 3. Assume the same facts as in Example 2, except that
instead of an increase in salary, B receives a restricted stock
grant subject to B's continued employment for the balance of the
contract. The restricted stock grant is not a material modification
of the binding written contract because any additional compensation
paid to B under the grant is not paid on the basis of substantially
the same elements and conditions as B's salary because it is based
both on the stock price and B's continued service. However,
compensation attributable to the restricted stock grant is subject
to the deduction limitation of section 162(m).
(2) Special transition rule for outside directors. A director who
is a disinterested director is treated as satisfying the requirements
of an outside director under paragraph (e)(3) of this section until the
first meeting of shareholders at which directors are to be elected that
occurs on or after January 1, 1996. For purposes of this paragraph
(h)(2) and paragraph (h)(3) of this section, a director is a
disinterested director if the director is disinterested within the
meaning of Rule 16b-3(c)(2)(i), 17 CFR 240.16b-3(c)(2)(i), under the
Exchange Act (including the provisions of Rule 16b-3(d)(3), as in
effect on April 30, 1991).
(3) Special transition rule for previously-approved plans--(i) In
general. Any compensation paid under a plan or agreement approved by
shareholders before December 20, 1993, is treated as satisfying the
requirements of paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of this section, provided
that the directors administering the plan or agreement are
disinterested directors and the plan was approved by shareholders in a
manner consistent with Rule 16b-3(b), 17 CFR 240.16b-3(b), under the
Exchange Act or Rule 16b-3(a), 17 CFR 240.16b-3(a) (as contained in 17
CFR part 240 revised April 1, 1990). In addition, for purposes of
satisfying the requirements of paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of this section, a
plan or agreement is treated as stating a maximum number of shares with
respect to which an option or right may be granted to any employee if
the plan or agreement that was approved by the shareholders provided
for an aggregate limit, consistent with Rule 16b-3(b), 17 CFR 250.16b-
3(b), on the shares of employer stock with respect to which awards may
be made under the plan or agreement.
(ii) Reliance period. The transition rule provided in this
paragraph (h)(3)
[[Page 65547]]
shall continue and may be relied upon until the earliest of--
(A) The expiration or material modification of the plan or
agreement;
(B) The issuance of all employer stock and other compensation that
has been allocated under the plan; or
(C) The first meeting of shareholders at which directors are to be
elected that occurs after December 31, 1996.
(iii) Stock-based compensation. This paragraph (h)(3) will apply to
any compensation received pursuant to the exercise of a stock option or
stock appreciation right, or the substantial vesting of restricted
property, granted under a plan or agreement described in paragraph
(h)(3)(i) of this section if the grant occurs on or before the earliest
of the events specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section.
(iv) Example. The following example illustrates the application of
this paragraph (h)(3):
Example. Corporation Z adopted a stock option plan in 1991.
Pursuant to Rule 16b-3 under the Exchange Act, the stock option plan
has been administered by disinterested directors and was approved by
Corporation Z shareholders. Under the terms of the plan, shareholder
approval is not required again until 2001. In addition, the terms of
the stock option plan include an aggregate limit on the number of
shares available under the plan. Option grants under the Corporation
Z plan are made with an exercise price equal to or greater than the
fair market value of Corporation Z stock. Compensation attributable
to the exercise of options that are granted under the plan before
the earliest of the dates specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this
section will be treated as satisfying the requirements of paragraph
(e) of this section for qualified performance-based compensation,
regardless of when the options are exercised.
(i) (Reserved)
(j) Effective date--(1) In general. Section 162(m) and this section
apply to compensation that is otherwise deductible by the corporation
in a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 1994.
(2) Delayed effective date for certain provisions--(i) Date on
which remuneration is considered paid. Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1)
of this section, the rules in the second sentence of each of paragraphs
(e)(3)(ii)(A), (e)(3)(ii)(B), and (e)(3)(ii)(C) of this section for
determining the date or dates on which remuneration is considered paid
to a director are effective for taxable years beginning on or after
January 1, 1995. Prior to those taxable years, taxpayers must follow
the rules in paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(A), (e)(3)(ii)(B), and (e)(3)(ii)(C)
of this section or another reasonable, good faith interpretation of
section 162(m) with respect to the date or dates on which remuneration
is considered paid to a director.
(ii) Separate treatment of publicly held subsidiaries.
Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1) of this section, the rule in paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) of this section that treats publicly held subsidiaries as
separately subject to section 162(m) is effective as of the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the shareholders of the publicly held
subsidiary that occurs more than 12 months after December 2, 1994. The
rule for stock-based compensation set forth in paragraph (f)(3) of this
section will apply for this purpose, except that the grant must occur
before the shareholder meeting specified in this paragraph (j)(2)(ii).
Taxpayers may choose to rely on the rule referred to in the first
sentence of this paragraph (j)(2)(ii) for the period prior to the
effective date of the rule.
(iii) Subsidiaries that become separate publicly held corporations.
Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1) of this section, if a subsidiary of a
publicly held corporation becomes a separate publicly held corporation
as described in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section, then, for the
duration of the reliance period described in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, the rules of paragraph (f)(1) of this section are treated as
applying (and the rules of paragraph (f)(4) of this section do not
apply) to remuneration paid to covered employees of that new publicly
held corporation pursuant to a plan or agreement that existed prior to
December 2, 1994, provided that the treatment of that remuneration as
performance-based is in accordance with a reasonable, good faith
interpretation of section 162(m). However, if remuneration is paid to
covered employees of that new publicly held corporation pursuant to a
plan or agreement that existed prior to December 2, 1994, but that
remuneration is not performance-based under a reasonable, good faith
interpretation of section 162(m), the rules of paragraph (f)(1) of this
section will be treated as applying only until the first regularly
scheduled meeting of shareholders that occurs more than 12 months after
December 2, 1994. The rules of paragraph (f)(4) of this section will
apply as of that first regularly scheduled meeting. The rule for stock-
based compensation set forth in paragraph (f)(3) of this section will
apply for purposes of this paragraph (j)(2)(iii), except that the grant
must occur before the shareholder meeting specified in the preceding
sentence if the remuneration is not performance-based under a
reasonable, good faith interpretation of section 162(m). Taxpayers may
choose to rely on the rules of paragraph (f)(4) of this section for the
period prior to the applicable effective date referred to in the first
or second sentence of this paragraph (j)(2)(iii).
(iv) Bonus pools. Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1) of this section,
the rules in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(A) that limit the sum of individual
percentages of a bonus pool to 100 percent will not apply to
remuneration paid before January 1, 2001, based on performance in any
performance period that began prior to December 20, 1995.
(v) Compensation based on a percentage of salary or base pay.
Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1) of this section, the requirement in
paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section that, in the case of certain
formulas based on a percentage of salary or base pay, a corporation
disclose to shareholders the maximum dollar amount of compensation that
could be paid to the employee, will apply only to plans approved by
shareholders after April 30, 1995.
PART 602--OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Par. 3. The authority citation for part 602 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
Sec. 602.101 [Amended]
Par. 4. In Sec. 602.101, paragraph (c) is amended by adding the
entry ``1.162-27. . . . 1545-1466'' in numerical order to the table.
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: December 12, 1995.
Leslie Samuels,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 95-30869 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30840 Partial Revocation of Secretarial Order Dated May 23, 1946; Colorado
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30840]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Public Land Order 7176
[CO-935-1430-01; COC-28255]
Partial Revocation of Secretarial Order Dated May 23, 1946;
Colorado
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Public Land Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This order partially revokes a Secretarial order insofar as it
affects 160 acres of public land withdrawn for the Bureau of
Reclamation's Gunnison-Arkansas Project. The land is no longer needed
for reclamation purposes, and the partial revocation will allow for
disposal by exchange. This action will open 160 acres to surface entry
and mining unless closed by overlapping withdrawals or temporary
segregations of record. The land has been and will remain open to
mineral leasing.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexa Watson, BLM Colorado State
Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215-7076, 303-239-
3796.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:
1. The Secretarial Order dated May 23, 1946, which withdrew public
land for the Bureau of Reclamation's Gunnison-Arkansas Project, is
hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described land:
New Mexico Principal Meridian
T. 49 N., R. 5 W.,
Sec. 34, NE\1/4\.
The area described contains 160 acres in Gunnison County.
2. At 9 a.m. on January 19, 1996, the land described in paragraph 1
will be opened to the operation of the public land laws generally,
subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing
withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of
applicable law. All valid applications received at or prior to 9 a.m.
on January 19, 1996, shall be considered as simultaneously filed at
that time. Those received thereafter shall be considered in the order
of filing.
3. At 9 a.m. on January 19, 1996, the land described in paragraph 1
will be opened to location and entry under the United States mining
laws subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing
withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of
applicable law. Appropriation of any of the land described in this
order under the general mining laws prior to the date and time of
restoration is unauthorized. Any such attempted appropriation,
including attempted adverse possession under 30 U.S.C. 38 (1988), shall
vest no rights against the United States. Acts required to establish a
location and to initiate a right of possession are governed by State
law where not in conflict with Federal law. The Bureau of Land
Management will not intervene in disputes between rival locators over
possessory rights since Congress has provided for such determinations
in local courts.
Dated: December 8, 1995.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 95-30840 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30839 Exempt Organizations Not Required To File Annual Returns: Integrated Auxiliaries of Churches
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65550-65553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30839]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 8640]
RIN 1545-AI52
Exempt Organizations Not Required To File Annual Returns:
Integrated Auxiliaries of Churches
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations that exempt certain
integrated auxiliaries of churches from filing information returns.
These regulations incorporate the rules of Rev. Proc. 86-23 (1986-1
C.B. 564), into the regulations defining integrated auxiliary for
purposes of determining what entities must file information returns.
The new definition focuses on the sources of an organization's
financial support in addition to the nature of the organization's
activities.
DATES: These regulations are effective December 20, 1995.
For dates of applicability of these regulations, see Sec. 1.6033-
2(h)(6).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terri Harris or Paul Accettura, of the
Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits and Exempt
Organizations), IRS, at 202-622-6070 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 15, 1994 proposed regulations Secs. 1.6033-2 and 1.508-
1 [EE-41-86 (1995-2 I.R.B. 20)] under sections 6033(a)(2) and 508 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, respectively, were published in the
Federal Register (59 FR 64633). The proposed regulations adopted the
rules of Rev. Proc. 86-23 (1986-1, C.B. 564) as the definition of
integrated auxiliary of a church replacing the current definition set
forth in Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(5). Additionally, section 508(c) excepts
integrated auxiliaries of a church from the requirement that new
organizations notify the Secretary of the Treasury that they are
applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status (Form 1023). For
consistency, Sec. 1.508-1(a)(3)(i)(a), which gives several examples of
integrated auxiliaries, was proposed to be amended by deleting the
examples and by adding a cross-reference to Sec. 1.6033-2(h) for the
definition of integrated auxiliary of a church. After IRS and Treasury
consideration of the public comments received regarding the proposed
regulations, the regulations are adopted as revised by this Treasury
decision.
Explanation of Provisions
Section 6033(a)(1) requires organizations that are exempt from
income tax under section 501(a) to file annual returns. Section
6033(a)(2)(A) provides exceptions to this requirement for certain
specified types of organizations, including, among others, churches,
their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of
churches. Section 6033(a)(2)(B) provides that the Secretary may relieve
any organization from the filing requirement where the Secretary
determines that filing is not necessary to the efficient administration
of the internal revenue laws.
Prior to this Treasury decision, Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(5)(i) defined the
term integrated auxiliary of a church as an organization that is: (1)
exempt from taxation as an organization described in section 501(c)(3);
(2) affiliated with a church (within the meaning of Sec. 1.6033-
2(g)(5)(iii)); and (3) engaged in a principal activity that is
``exclusively religious.'' Section 1.6033-2(g)(5)(ii) provides that an
organization's principal activity is not ``exclusively religious'' if
that activity is educational, literary, charitable, or of another
nature (other than religious) that would serve as a basis for exemption
under section 501(c)(3).
The ``exclusively religious'' element of the definition was
litigated in Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota v. United States, 583
F. Supp. 1298 (D. Minn. 1984), rev'd 758 F.2d 1283 (8th Cir. 1985), and
Tennessee Baptist Children's Homes, Inc. v. United States, 604 F. Supp.
210 (M.D. Tenn. 1984) aff'd, 790 F.2d 534 (6th Cir. 1986). While the
litigation over the ``exclusively religious'' standard was proceeding,
Congress enacted section 3121(w) of the Internal Revenue Code, Tax
Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, section 2603(b), 98 Stat. 494, 1128
(1984), which permits certain church-related organizations to elect out
of social security coverage if they meet a standard based on the degree
of financial support they receive from a church. In light of this
litigation and the enactment of section 3121(w), IRS personnel met with
representatives of various church organizations to encourage voluntary
compliance with the filing requirements and to develop a less
controversial and more objective standard for identifying an integrated
auxiliary of a church.
Subsequent to these meetings the IRS published Rev. Proc. 86-23,
which provides that, for tax years beginning after December 31, 1975,
an organization is not required to file Form 990 if it is: (1)
described in sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a) (1), (2), or (3); (2)
affiliated with a church or a convention or association of churches;
and (3) internally supported. With respect to this last criterion, Rev.
Proc. 86-23 sets forth an internal support standard that is similar to
the financial support standard in section 3121(w).
The proposed regulations adopted the rules of Rev. Proc. 86-23 as
the definition of the term integrated auxiliary of a church replacing
the current definition set forth in Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(5). The final
regulations retain the definition of an integrated auxiliary of a
church that is contained in the proposed regulations.
Under this Treasury decision, to be an integrated auxiliary of a
church an organization must first be described in section 501(c)(3) and
section 509(a) (1), (2), or (3), and be affiliated with a church in
accordance with standards set forth in the regulations. An organization
meeting those tests is an integrated auxiliary if it either: (1) does
not offer admissions, goods, services, or facilities for sale, other
than on an incidental basis, to the general public; or (2) offers
admissions, goods, services, or facilities for sale, other than on an
incidental basis, to the general public and not more than 50 percent of
its support comes from a combination of government sources, public
solicitation of contributions, and receipts other than those from an
unrelated trade or business.
Some commentators have noted that certain church-related
organizations that finance, fund and manage pension programs were
originally excused from filing by Notice 84-2 (1984-1 C.B. 331), which
was issued pursuant to the Commissioner's discretionary authority
[[Page 65551]]
under section 6033(a)(2)(B). Rev. Proc. 86-23 states that Notice 84-2
is superseded by Rev. Proc. 86-23 because the organizations excused
from filing under the notice are excused from filing by the revenue
procedure. The commentators have expressed concern that the proposed
regulations did not relieve church pension plans described in Notice
84-2 from the filing requirement. The organizations excused from filing
under Notice 84-2 do not necessarily meet the definition of an
integrated auxiliary of a church under these final regulations.
Nevertheless, the proposed regulations were not intended to alter the
exemption from filing provided in Notice 84-2 and reaffirmed in Rev.
Proc. 86-23. To make this intent clear, the IRS is issuing Revenue
Procedure 96-10 at the same time that it issues these final
regulations. Rev. Proc. 96-10 carries over the exemption from filing
for church pension plan organizations that was set forth in Notice 84-
2. Having reaffirmed those parts of Rev. Proc. 86-23 that were not
incorporated into these final regulations, Rev. Proc. 96-10 also
obsoletes Rev. Proc. 86-23.
The IRS developed the internal support test contained in the
proposed regulations based on its conclusion that Congress intended
that organizations receiving a majority of their support from public
and government sources, as opposed to those receiving a majority of
their support from church sources, should file annual information
returns in order that the public have a means of inspecting the returns
of these organizations. The annual information return also was intended
to serve as a means by which the IRS could examine, if necessary, those
organizations receiving substantial non-church support.
One commentator has suggested that the definition of an integrated
auxiliary of a church should consist of a church-related structural
test rather than an internal support test. The IRS and the Treasury
Department believe that the use of a structural test could lead to
problems similar to those caused by the ``exclusively religious'' test.
Additionally, the suggested definition would frustrate Congress'
intended objective of allowing ongoing public scrutiny of organizations
receiving the majority of their support from public and government
sources.
A commentator has also suggested that by using the internal support
test as part of the new definition of an integrated auxiliary of a
church, the IRS is attempting to ``overrule'' the holdings in the
previously mentioned court cases (i.e. Tennessee Baptist Children's
Home and Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota).
The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that the courts'
rulings questioned the validity of the ``exclusively religious''
activity requirement contained in the former regulation on the basis
that it is not within the Service's discretion to assess the religious
nature of a church's activities. Having eliminated the ``exclusively
religious'' activity test from the definition of integrated auxiliary
of a church, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that the
definition in the final regulation is consistent with the courts'
holdings as well as the statute and the legislative history.
Some commentators have suggested that the first sentence of
Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(5)(iv) of the regulations in effect prior to this
Treasury decision should be included in the final regulations. That
sentence identified specific types of organizations as integrated
auxiliaries of churches in accordance with legislative history.
Although Sec. 1.6033-2(h) of the proposed regulations was intended to
provide a general definition that could apply in all instances, the IRS
and the Treasury Department agree that, in order to be consistent with
the legislative history, parts of Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(5)(iv) of the
regulations should be included in these final regulations. Therefore,
these final regulations include Sec. 1.6033-2(h)(5) that states that
``a men's or women's organization, a seminary, a mission society, or a
youth group'' is an integrated auxiliary of a church regardless of
whether it meets the internal support test in to Sec. 1.6033-
2(h)(1)(iii). (The tests under Sec. 1.6033-2(h)(1) (i) and (ii) must
still be met.)
Comments were received objecting that Example 4 relating to
seminaries did not describe a realistic set of facts and, therefore,
could lead to confusion. Accordingly, Example 4 has been eliminated.
Also, the treatment of seminaries has been clarified by Sec. 1.6033-
2(h)(5). We also note that, in addition to the exception for
seminaries, Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(1)(vii) of the regulations excepts certain
schools below college level that are affiliated with a church or
operated by a religious order from the filing requirements of section
6033. Except for a paragraph numbering change contained in a cross-
reference, Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(1)(vii) is unchanged by these final
regulations.
Several commentators have suggested that expanded definitions of
certain terms used in the internal support test be included in this
Treasury decision. The final regulations do not incorporate this
suggestion. The IRS and the Treasury Department intend for these final
regulations to reissue the test published in Rev. Proc. 86-23 as the
new definition for an integrated auxiliary of a church. If guidance is
necessary on the application of the definition to specific cases, that
guidance is more appropriately provided in non-regulatory form, such as
through private letter rulings or revenue rulings.
The amendment to Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(5) is effective with respect to
returns filed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1969.
However, for returns filed for taxable years beginning after December
31, 1969, but before December 20, 1995, the exclusively religious test
contained in Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(5) prior to its amendment by these final
regulations may, at the entity's option, be used as an alternative to
the financial support test in determining whether an entity is an
integrated auxiliary of a church. The remainder of the amendments are
effective with respect to returns for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 1969. Therefore, for returns filed for taxable years
beginning after December 20, 1995, the definition of integrated
auxiliary of a church contained in Sec. 1.6033-2(h) will be used in
determining whether an entity is an integrated auxiliary of a church.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore,a
regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that
section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5)
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to
these regulations, and, therefore, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code,
the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was
submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this Treasury decision is Terri Harris,
Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits and Exempt
Organizations), IRS. However, personnel from other offices of the IRS
and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 65552]]
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.508-1 is amended by revising paragraphs(a)(3)(i)
introductory text and (a)(3)(i)(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.508-1 Notices.
(a) * * *
(3) * * * (i) Paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section are
inapplicable to the following organizations:
(a) Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church,
conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a
church. See Sec. 1.6033-2(h) regarding the definition of integrated
auxiliary of a church;
* * * * *
Par. 3. Section 1.6033-2 is amended as follows:
1. Paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(vii) are revised.
2. Paragraph (g)(5) is removed and reserved.
3. Paragraphs (h) through (j) are redesignated as paragraphs (i)
through (k).
4. New paragraph (h) is added.
The added and revised provisions read as follows:
Sec. 1.6033-2 Returns by exempt organizations (taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1969) and returns by certain nonexempt organizations
(taxable years beginning after December 31, 1980).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) A church, an interchurch organization of local units of a
church, a convention or association of churches, or an integrated
auxiliary of a church (as defined in paragraph (h) of this section);
* * * * *
(vii) An educational organization (below college level) that is
described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii), that has a program of a general
academic nature, and that is affiliated (within the meaning of
paragraph (h)(2) of this section) with a church or operated by a
religious order.
* * * * *
(h) Integrated auxiliary--(1) In general. For purposes of this
title, the term integrated auxiliary of a church means an organization
that is--
(i) Described both in sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a) (1), (2), or
(3);
(ii) Affiliated with a church or a convention or association of
churches; and
(iii) Internally supported.
(2) Affiliation. An organization is affiliated with a church or a
convention or association of churches, for purposes of paragraph
(h)(1)(ii) of this section, if--
(i) The organization is covered by a group exemption letter issued
under applicable administrative procedures, (such as Rev. Proc. 80-27
(1980-1 C.B. 677); See Sec. 601.601(a)(2)(ii)(b)), to a church or a
convention or association of churches;
(ii) The organization is operated, supervised, or controlled by or
in connection with (as defined in Sec. 1.509(a)-4) a church or a
convention or association of churches; or
(iii) Relevant facts and circumstances show that it is so
affiliated.
(3) Facts and circumstances. For purposes of paragraph (h)(2)(iii)
of this section, relevant facts and circumstances that indicate an
organization is affiliated with a church or a convention or association
of churches include the following factors. However, the absence of one
or more of the following factors does not necessarily preclude
classification of an organization as being affiliated with a church or
a convention or association of churches--
(i) The organization's enabling instrument (corporate charter,
trust instrument, articles of association, constitution or similar
document) or by-laws affirm that the organization shares common
religious doctrines, principles, disciplines, or practices with a
church or a convention or association of churches;
(ii) A church or a convention or association of churches has the
authority to appoint or remove, or to control the appointment or
removal of, at least one of the organization's officers or directors;
(iii) The corporate name of the organization indicates an
institutional relationship with a church or a convention or association
of churches;
(iv) The organization reports at least annually on its financial
and general operations to a church or a convention or association of
churches;
(v) An institutional relationship between the organization and a
church or a convention or association of churches is affirmed by the
church, or convention or association of churches, or a designee
thereof; and
(vi) In the event of dissolution, the organization's assets are
required to be distributed to a church or a convention or association
of churches, or to an affiliate thereof within the meaning of this
paragraph (h).
(4) Internal support. An organization is internally supported, for
purposes of paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of this section, unless it both--
(i) Offers admissions, goods, services or facilities for sale,
other than on an incidental basis, to the general public (except goods,
services, or facilities sold at a nominal charge or for an
insubstantial portion of the cost); and
(ii) Normally receives more than 50 percent of its support from a
combination of governmental sources, public solicitation of
contributions, and receipts from the sale of admissions, goods,
performance of services, or furnishing of facilities in activities that
are not unrelated trades or businesses.
(5) Special rule. Men's and women's organizations, seminaries,
mission societies, and youth groups that satisfy paragraphs (h)(1) (i)
and (ii) of this section are integrated auxiliaries of a church
regardless of whether such an organization meets the internal support
requirement under paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of this section.
(6) Effective date. This paragraph (h) applies for returns filed
for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1969. For returns filed
for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1969 but beginning
before December 20, 1995, the definition for the term integrated
auxiliary of a church set forth in Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(5) (as contained in
the 26 CFR edition revised as of April 1, 1995) may be used as an
alternative definition to such term set forth in this paragraph (h).
(7) Examples of internal support. The internal support test of this
paragraph (h) is illustrated by the following examples, in each of
which it is assumed that the organization's provision of goods and
services does not constitute an unrelated trade or business:
Example 1. Organization A is described in sections 501(c)(3) and
509(a)(2) and is affiliated (within the meaning of this paragraph
(h)) with a church. Organization A publishes a weekly newspaper as
its only activity. On an incidental basis, some copies of
Organization A's publication are sold to nonmembers of the church
with which it is affiliated. Organization A advertises for
subscriptions at places of worship of the church. Organization A is
internally supported, regardless of its sources of financial
support, because it does not offer admissions, goods, services, or
facilities for sale, other than on an incidental basis, to the
general public. Organization A is an integrated auxiliary.
Example 2. Organization B is a retirement home described in
sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(2). Organization B is affiliated
(within the meaning of this paragraph (h)) with a
[[Page 65553]]
church. Admission to Organization B is open to all members of the
community for a fee. Organization B advertises in publications of
general distribution appealing to the elderly and maintains its name
on non-denominational listings of available retirement homes.
Therefore, Organization B offers its services for sale to the
general public on more than an incidental basis. Organization B
receives a cash contribution of $50,000 annually from the church.
Fees received by Organization B from its residents total $100,000
annually. Organization B does not receive any government support or
contributions from the general public. Total support is $150,000
($100,000 + $50,000), and $100,000 of that total is from receipts
from the performance of services (66\2/3\% of total support).
Therefore, Organization B receives more than 50 percent of its
support from receipts from the performance of services. Organization
B is not internally supported and is not an integrated auxiliary.
Example 3. Organization C is a hospital that is described in
sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1). Organization C is affiliated
(within the meaning of this paragraph (h)) with a church.
Organization C is open to all persons in need of hospital care in
the community, although most of Organization C's patients are
members of the same denomination as the church with which
Organization C is affiliated. Organization C maintains its name on
hospital listings used by the general public, and participating
doctors are allowed to admit all patients. Therefore, Organization C
offers its services for sale to the general public on more than an
incidental basis. Organization C annually receives $250,000 in
support from the church, $1,000,000 in payments from patients and
third party payors (including Medicare, Medicaid and other insurers)
for patient care, $100,000 in contributions from the public,
$100,000 in grants from the federal government (other than Medicare
and Medicaid payments) and $50,000 in investment income. Total
support is $1,500,000 ($250,000 + $1,000,000 + $100,000 + $100,000 +
$50,000), and $1,200,000 ($1,000,000 + $100,000 + $100,000) of that
total is support from receipts from the performance of services,
government sources, and public contributions (80% of total support).
Therefore, Organization C receives more than 50 percent of its
support from receipts from the performance of services, government
sources, and public contributions. Organization C is not internally
supported and is not an integrated auxiliary.
* * * * *
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: November 27, 1995.
Leslie Samuels,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 95-30839 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30838 Excise Tax On Self-Dealing By Private Foundations
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65566-65568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30838]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Part 53
[TD 8639]
RIN 1545-AT03
Excise Tax On Self-Dealing By Private Foundations
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations that clarify the
definition of self-dealing for private foundations. These regulations
modify the application of the self-dealing rules to the provision by a
private foundation of directors' and officers' liability insurance to
disqualified persons. In general, these regulations provide that
indemnification by a private foundation or provision of insurance for
purposes of covering the liabilities of the person in his/her capacity
as a manager of the private foundation is not self-dealing.
Additionally, the amounts expended by the private foundation for
insurance or indemnification generally are not included in the
compensation of the disqualified person for purposes of determining
whether the disqualified person's compensation is reasonable.
DATES: These regulations are effective December 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terri Harris or Paul Accettura of the
Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits and Exempt
Organizations), IRS, at 202-622-6070 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 3, 1995 proposed regulations amending Sec. 53.4941(d)-
2(f) [EE-56-94, 1995-6 I.R.B. 39] under section 4941 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 were published in the Federal Register (60 FR 82).
The proposed regulations provided that generally it would not be self-
dealing, nor treated as the payment of compensation, if a private
foundation were to indemnify or provide insurance to a foundation
manager in any civil judicial or civil administrative proceeding
arising out of the manager's performance of services on behalf of the
foundation. After IRS and Treasury consideration of the public comments
received regarding the proposed regulations, the regulations are
adopted as revised by this Treasury decision.
Explanation of Provisions
Section 4941(a) imposes a tax on each act of self-dealing between a
[[Page 65567]]
disqualified person and a private foundation. Section 4941(d)(1)(E)
defines self-dealing to include any direct or indirect transfer to, or
use by or for the benefit of, a disqualified person of the income or
assets of a private foundation. Prior to this Treasury decision,
Sec. 53.4941(d)-2(f)(1) provided that provision of insurance for the
payment of chapter 42 taxes by a private foundation for a foundation
manager was self- dealing unless the premium amounts were included in
the compensation of the foundation manager. The payment of chapter 42
taxes by the private foundation on behalf of the foundation manager was
self-dealing whether or not the amounts were included in the manager's
compensation.
Section 53.4941(d)-2(f)(3) provided that the indemnification of
certain expenses by a private foundation for a foundation manager's
defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding involving chapter 42
taxes was not self-dealing. Such expenses must have been reasonably
incurred by the manager in connection with such proceeding. Also, the
manager must have been successful in such defense, or such proceeding
must have been terminated by settlement, and the manager must not have
acted willfully and without reasonable cause with respect to the act or
failure to act which led to the liability for tax under chapter 42.
This Treasury decision expands the scope of the regulations to
cover indemnification and insurance payments made by a private
foundation to or on behalf of a foundation manager in connection with
any civil proceeding arising from the manager's performance of services
for the private foundation. The regulations also clarify the
distinction between the treatment of indemnification and insurance
payments under chapter 42 and the treatment of these same items for
income tax purposes.
The proposed regulations resulted in some confusion as to whether
certain indemnification and insurance payments would be considered
compensatory or non-compensatory. The final regulations have been
revised to provide greater clarity. They divide indemnification
payments and insurance coverage into non- compensatory and compensatory
categories, described comprehensively in Sec. 53.4941(d)-2(f) (3) and
(4). The second and third sentences of Sec. 53.4941(d)-2(f)(1) of the
proposed regulations have been removed because their substance was
incorporated into Sec. 53.4941(d)-2(f)(4). Generally, the non-
compensatory category includes indemnification and insurance payments
that cover expenses reasonably incurred in proceedings that do not
result from a willful act or omission of the manager undertaken without
reasonable cause. These payments are viewed as expenses for the
foundation's administration and operation rather than compensation for
the manager's services. The compensatory category includes
indemnification or insurance payments that cover taxes (including taxes
imposed by chapter 42), penalties or expenses of correction, expenses
that were not reasonably incurred, or expenses for proceedings that
result from a willful act or omission of the manager undertaken without
reasonable cause. These payments are viewed as being exclusively for
the benefit of the manager, not the foundation.
The regulations provide that non-compensatory indemnification and
insurance payments are not affected by the prohibition against self-
dealing. Conversely, compensatory indemnification and insurance
payments are considered acts of self-dealing unless they are added to
the benefiting manager's total compensation for purposes of determining
whether that compensation is reasonable. If the total compensation is
not reasonable, the foundation will have engaged in an act of self-
dealing.
In some instances, a foundation may purchase an insurance policy
that provides both non-compensatory and compensatory coverage. Some
commentators have recommended that no allocation of insurance premiums
be required when a single policy of this sort is purchased. These
commentators argue that the allocation requirement places an undue
burden on private foundations. After careful consideration, the IRS and
the Treasury Department have decided to retain the allocation provision
in the final regulations. The self-dealing rules were meant to
discourage foundations from relieving managers of penalties, taxes and
expenses of correction, as well as expenses ultimately resulting from
the manager's willful violation of the law. A rule that did not require
an allocation to determine whether the disqualified person's
compensation is reasonable for purposes of chapter 42 could have the
opposite effect. The insurance allocation rules are now set forth in
Sec. 53.4941(d)-2(f)(5).
Some commentators requested a clearer statement of what is meant by
the statement that indemnification or insurance premiums are to be
treated as compensation to the benefiting foundation manager. The IRS
and the Treasury Department agree that further clarification is
desirable. Accordingly, Sec. 53.4941(d)-2(f)(7) has been added. It
provides that treatment as compensation for the limited purpose of
determining whether compensation is reasonable under chapter 42 is
separate and distinct from treatment as income to the benefiting
manager under the income tax provisions. Whether any amount of
indemnification or insurance is included in the manager's gross income
for individual income tax purposes is determined in accordance with
section 132, without regard to the treatment of such amounts under
chapter 42.
Finally, a provision has been added to the regulations specifying
that a foundation may disregard de minimis benefits when calculating
the total amount of compensation paid to an officer, director or
foundation manager for purposes of determining whether that
compensation is reasonable. In this context, a de minimis benefit is
one excluded from gross income under section 132(a)(4). This provision
makes explicit a Service position that has previously been reflected in
the instructions to the Form 990-PF.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that
section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5)
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to
these regulations, and, therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code,
the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was
submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this Treasury decision is Terri Harris,
Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits and Exempt
Organizations), IRS. However, personnel from other offices of the IRS
and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 53
Excise taxes, Foundations, Investments, Lobbying, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 65568]]
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 53 is amended as follows:
PART 53--FOUNDATION AND SIMILAR EXCISE TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority for part 53 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
Par. 2. Section 53.4941(d)-2 is amended as follows:
1. Paragraph (f)(1) is amended by removing the second and third
sentences and revising the fourth sentence.
2. Paragraph (f)(3) is revised.
3. Paragraph (f)(4) is redesignated as paragraph (f)(9).
4. New paragraphs (f)(4) through (f)(8) are added.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 53.4941(d)-2 Specific acts of self-dealing.
* * * * *
(f) Transfer or use of the income or assets of a private
foundation--(1) In general. * * * For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the purchase or sale of stock or other securities by a
private foundation shall be an act of self-dealing if such purchase or
sale is made in an attempt to manipulate the price of the stock or
other securities to the advantage of a disqualified person. * * *
* * * * *
(3) Non-compensatory indemnification of foundation managers against
liability for defense in civil proceedings. (i) Except as provided in
Sec. 53.4941(d)-3(c), section 4941(d)(1) shall not apply to the
indemnification by a private foundation of a foundation manager, with
respect to the manager's defense in any civil judicial or civil
administrative proceeding arising out of the manager's performance of
services (or failure to perform services) on behalf of the foundation,
against all expenses (other than taxes, including taxes imposed by
chapter 42, penalties, or expenses of correction) including attorneys'
fees, judgments and settlement expenditures if--
(A) Such expenses are reasonably incurred by the manager in
connection with such proceeding; and
(B) The manager has not acted willfully and without reasonable
cause with respect to the act or failure to act which led to such
proceeding or to liability for tax under chapter 42.
(ii) Similarly, except as provided in Sec. 53.4941(d)-3(c), section
4941(d)(1) shall not apply to premiums for insurance to make or to
reimburse a foundation for an indemnification payment allowed pursuant
to this paragraph (f)(3). Neither shall an indemnification or payment
of insurance allowed pursuant to this paragraph (f)(3) be treated as
part of the compensation paid to such manager for purposes of
determining whether the compensation is reasonable under chapter 42.
(4) Compensatory indemnification of foundation managers against
liability for defense in civil proceedings. (i) The indemnification by
a private foundation of a foundation manager for compensatory expenses
shall be an act of self-dealing under this paragraph unless when such
payment is added to other compensation paid to such manager the total
compensation is reasonable under chapter 42. A compensatory expense for
purposes of this paragraph (f) is--
(A) Any penalty, tax (including a tax imposed by chapter 42), or
expense of correction that is owed by the foundation manager;
(B) Any expense not reasonably incurred by the manager in
connection with a civil judicial or civil administrative proceeding
arising out of the manager's performance of services on behalf of the
foundation; or
(C) Any expense resulting from an act or failure to act with
respect to which the manager has acted willfully and without reasonable
cause.
(ii) Similarly, the payment by a private foundation of the premiums
for an insurance policy providing liability insurance to a foundation
manager for expenses described in this paragraph (f)(4) shall be an act
of self-dealing under this paragraph (f) unless when such premiums are
added to other compensation paid to such manager the total compensation
is reasonable under chapter 42.
(5) Insurance Allocation. A private foundation shall not be engaged
in an act of self-dealing if the foundation purchases a single
insurance policy to provide its managers both the noncompensatory and
the compensatory coverage discussed in this paragraph (f), provided
that the total insurance premium is allocated and that each manager's
portion of the premium attributable to the compensatory coverage is
included in that manager's compensation for purposes of determining
reasonable compensation under chapter 42.
(6) Indemnification. For purposes of this paragraph (f), the term
indemnification shall include not only reimbursement by the foundation
for expenses that the foundation manager has already incurred or
anticipates incurring but also direct payment by the foundation of such
expenses as the expenses arise.
(7) Taxable Income. The determination of whether any amount of
indemnification or insurance premium discussed in this paragraph (f) is
included in the manager's gross income for individual income tax
purposes is made on the basis of the provisions of chapter 1 and
without regard to the treatment of such amount for purposes of
determining whether the manager's compensation is reasonable under
chapter 42.
(8) De minimis items. Any property or service that is excluded from
income under section 132(a)(4) may be disregarded for purposes of
determining whether the recipient's compensation is reasonable under
chapter 42.
* * * * *
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: December 12, 1995.
Leslie Samuels,
Assistant Secretary of Treasury.
[FR Doc. 95-30838 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30823 Community Reinvestment Act Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66048-66051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30823]
[[Page 66047]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Department of the Treasury
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 25
Federal Reserve System
12 CFR Part 228
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
12 CFR Part 345
Department of the Treasury
Office of Thrift Supervision
12 CFR Part 563e
_______________________________________________________________________
Community Reinvestment Act Regulations; Joint Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 66048]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. 95-07]
RIN 1557-AB32
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 228
[Regulation BB; Docket No. R-0822]
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 345
RIN 3064-AB27
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Thrift Supervision
12 CFR Part 563e
[Docket No. 95-203]
RIN 1550-AA93
Community Reinvestment Act Regulations
AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC);
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); Office of Thrift Supervision,
Treasury (OTS).
ACTION: Joint final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, FDIC, and OTS, (collectively, the Federal
financial supervisory agencies or agencies) are issuing this final rule
to make technical corrections and clarifications to their regulations
concerning the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Since the publication
of the agencies' joint CRA regulations, financial institutions and
others have alerted the agencies that two errors exist and that the
transition rules are confusing. This final rule is intended to correct
the errors and clarify the transition rules.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OCC: Stephen M. Cross, Deputy Comptroller for Compliance, (202)
874-5216; Matthew Roberts, Director, or Margaret Hesse, Attorney,
Community and Consumer Law Division, (202) 874-5750, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Board: Glenn E. Loney, Associate Director, Division of Consumer and
Community Affairs, (202) 452-3585; Robert deV. Frierson, Assistant
General Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 452-3711; or Leonard N. Chanin,
Managing Counsel, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, (202)
452-3667, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.
FDIC: Bobbie Jean Norris, Chief, Fair Lending Section, Division of
Compliance and Consumer Affairs, (202) 942-3090; Robert W. Mooney, Fair
Lending Specialist, Division of Compliance and Consumer Affairs, (202)
942-3092; or Ann Hume Loikow, Counsel, Regulation and Legislation
Section, Legal Division, (202) 898-3796, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.
OTS: Timothy R. Burniston, Assistant Director for Compliance
Policy, (202) 906-5629; Theresa A. Stark, Program Analyst, Compliance
Policy, (202) 906-7054; or John Flannery, Attorney, Regulations and
Legislation Division, Chief Counsel's Office, (202) 906-7293, Office of
Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
The Federal financial supervisory agencies jointly are amending
their regulations implementing the CRA (12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.). This
final rule makes technical corrections and clarifications to the
agencies' joint CRA regulations, 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e.
Those regulations establish the framework and criteria by which the
agencies assess an institution's record of helping to meet the credit
needs of its community, including low- and moderate-income
neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations, and provide
that the agencies will take those assessments into account in reviewing
certain applications.
Background
The agencies published a joint notice of proposed rulemaking to
amend their CRA regulations on December 21, 1993 (58 FR 67466). In
response to over 6,700 comments received, the agencies published a
second joint notice of proposed rulemaking on October 7, 1994 (59 FR
51232). After considering over 7,200 comments received in response to
the second joint proposed rule, the agencies adopted a joint final rule
on May 4, 1995 (60 FR 22156) (1995 Rule).
Need for Final Rule
The agencies are amending their recently adopted CRA regulations to
correct two technical errors and to clarify the transition rules. Since
the publication of the 1995 Rule, a number of financial institutions
have expressed confusion about the transition rules.
The agencies find that notice and public procedure concerning this
joint final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the
public interest under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B). The agencies make this
finding because: (1) This joint final rule involves only technical
corrections and clarifications to the recently adopted 1995 Rule, which
was subject to public notice and comment; (2) some institutions will be
subject to the performance tests and standards of the 1995 Rule
beginning on January 1, 1996, so it is in the public interest that the
joint final rule be effective at that time; and (3) this joint final
rule makes no substantive change to the 1995 Rule, rather it makes
corrections and eliminates ambiguities associated with the transition
requirements.
Furthermore, under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d)(3), the agencies have
determined to make this joint final rule effective with less than 30
days prior publication. The agencies find that there is good cause for
shortened notice due to the minor nature of the changes, the fact that
some institutions will be subject to the performance tests and
standards of the 1995 Rule beginning January 1, 1996, and for other
reasons previously discussed.
Corrections
The agencies' 1995 Rule contains two errors. First, an internal
cross reference is incorrect. The cross reference is found in the
discussions about how an institution may amend its strategic plan,
found at 12 CFR 25.27(h), 228.27(h), 345.27(h), and 563e.27(h). These
identical sections incorrectly state that the amendment process must be
done in accordance with the public participation requirements of
``paragraph (c) of this section.'' The correct cross reference is
``paragraph (d) of this section.'' The agencies are amending their
respective regulations to reflect the correct cross reference.
Second, an external cross reference is incorrect. In their joint
preamble to the final rule, the agencies discussed the definition of
``community development'' contained in the regulations. In the
preamble, the agencies stated that ``[t]he section of the definition
that discusses activities that promote economic development by
financing small business and farms refers to 13 CFR 121.802(a)(2), the
size limitations for the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Small
Business Investment
[[Page 66049]]
Company and Development Company programs'' (60 FR 22159). The agencies'
final regulations do, indeed, reference 13 CFR 121.802(a)(2). However,
because of an amendment to the SBA regulation (59 FR 16953) made during
the agencies' CRA rulemaking process, this citation refers to only the
SBA's Development Company Programs. The correct reference should be 13
CFR 121.802(a) (2) and (3), which include both the Development Company
and Small Business Investment Company Programs, as intended. Therefore,
the agencies are amending the cross references in 12 CFR 25.12(h)(3),
228.12(h)(3), 345.12(h)(3), and 563e.12(g)(3). The citations are
changed from ``13 CFR 121.802(a)(2)'' to ``13 CFR 121.802(a) (2) and
(3).''
Clarification
The agencies are amending their transition rules, found at 12 CFR
25.51, 228.51, 345.51, and 563e.51. The transition rules are correct
for purposes of incorporation into and expiration from the Code of
Federal Regulations. However, the banks and thrifts that must comply
with them have expressed confusion regarding how the rules apply.
The transition rules state the final date of applicability to all
institutions with regard to each particular provision of the CRA
regulation. However, the transition rules inadequately explain the
transition from the former regulation to the new regulation. The
agencies are clarifying that when an institution, either mandatorily or
voluntarily, becomes subject to the requirements of the performance
tests and standards in the 1995 Rule (12 CFR 25.21 through 25.27,
228.21 through 228.27, 345.21 through 345.27, and 563e.21 through
563e.27, as applicable), the institution must comply with all aspects
of the 1995 Rule (12 CFR 25.11 through 25.44, 228.11 through 228.44,
345.11 through 345.44, or 563e.11 through 563e.44) applicable to it.
For example, the transition rules state that the agencies will
evaluate small institutions under the small institution performance
standards described in 12 CFR 25.26, 228.26, 345.26, and 563e.26 on
January 1, 1996. However, so that the agencies may evaluate a small
institution under the small institution performance standards, the
small institution must also comply with other provisions of the
regulation that are pertinent. Those provisions would include
delineating an assessment area (12 CFR 25.41, 228.41, 345.41, or
563e.41, as applicable), maintaining a public file (12 CFR 25.43,
228.43, 345.43, or 563e.43, as applicable), and providing the proper
public notice (12 CFR 25.44, 228.44, 345.44, or 563e.44, as
applicable). The transition rules at 12 CFR 25.51(c) (4) and (5),
228.51(c) (4) and (5) 345.51(c) (4) and (5), and 563e.51(c) (4) and
(5), however, state that these requirements do not become applicable
until January 1 or July 1, 1997. The 1997 dates refer to the last point
in time that these requirements become effective for any institution.
However, the requirements become effective for small institutions as
soon as the small institutions are subject to evaluation under the
small institution performance standards.
In some cases, an institution may choose to comply with the
performance standards and tests of the May 1995 rule before it must do
so. For instance, a large institution may elect to be evaluated under
the lending, investment and service tests (12 CFR 25.22 through 25.24,
228.22 through 228.24, 345.22 through 345.24, or 563e.22 through
563e.24, as applicable) before it is required to do so in July of 1997.
In this case, the institution must comply with all other provisions of
the 1995 Rule.
Similarly, the transition rules state that, for example, the
section of the former CRA regulation (12 CFR 25.6, 228.6, 345.6 or
563e.6, as applicable) that addresses public notice requirements does
not expire until January 1, 1997. However, the public notice
requirements (12 CFR 25.44, 228.44, 345.44 or 563e.44, as applicable)
in the 1995 Rule are different from the former requirements.
Institutions would find it confusing, if not impossible, to comply
completely with both provisions. Therefore, once an institution either
voluntarily or mandatorily becomes subject to the performance tests and
standards of the 1995 Rule, the provisions of the former CRA regulation
(12 CFR 25.3 through 25.7, 228.3 through 25.7, 345.3 through 345.7, or
563e.3 through 563e.7, as applicable) no longer apply to that
institution, even though they may continue to apply to other
institutions.
Therefore, to clarify these provisions, the agencies are amending
12 CFR 25.51(a), 228.51(a), 345.51(a), and 563e.51(a) by adding at the
end of paragraph (a), a sentence explaining that once an institution is
either voluntarily or mandatorily subject to the performance tests and
standards of the 1995 Rule, the institution must comply with all of the
requirements of the 1995 Rule and is no longer subject to the
requirements of the former CRA regulation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
OCC, Board, FDIC, and OTS hereby certify that this joint final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The agencies expect that this joint final rule will not
have significant secondary or incidental effects on a substantial
number of small entities, or create any additional burden on small
entities. The joint final rule merely makes technical corrections to
two cross-references and clarifies requirements of the transition rules
already adopted by the agencies. These changes will not increase and
may, in fact, reduce the burden on institutions because they will make
the rules clearer. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
There are no collection of information requirements in this joint
final rule.
Executive Order 12866
OCC and OTS: The OCC and the OTS have determined that this joint
final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
OCC and OTS: Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48 (1995) (Unfunded Mandates Act),
requires that covered agencies prepare a budgetary impact statement
before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of
the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires covered agencies to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule. As discussed in the preamble, this joint final
rule amends the agencies' CRA regulations to make two technical
corrections and one clarification. Therefore, the OCC and the OTS have
determined that the joint final rule will not result in expenditures by
State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year. Accordingly, the OCC and the OTS
have not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically
addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.
[[Page 66050]]
List of Subjects
12 CFR Part 25
Community development, Credit, Investments, National banks,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
12 CFR Part 228
Banks, Banking, Community development, Credit, Federal Reserve
System, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
12 CFR Part 345
Banks, Banking, Community development, Credit, Investments,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
12 CFR Part 563e
Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
12 CFR CHAPTER I
For the reasons discussed in the joint preamble, 12 CFR part 25 is
amended as follows:
PART 25--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 36, 93a, 161, 215,
215a, 481, 1814, 1816, 1828(c), and 2901 through 2907.
Sec. 25.12 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 25.12(h)(3), the cross reference ``13 CFR
121.802(a)(2)'' is revised to read ``13 CFR 121.802(a) (2) and (3)''.
Sec. 25.27 [Amended]
3. In the last sentence of Sec. 25.27(h), the internal cross
reference ``paragraph (c) of this section'' is revised to read
``paragraph (d) of this section''.
4. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 25.51 is amended by adding a sentence at
the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 25.51 Transition rules.
(a) * * * Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, when a
bank, either voluntarily or mandatorily, becomes subject to the
performance tests and standards of Secs. 25.21 through 25.27, the bank
must comply with all the pertinent requirements of Secs. 25.11 through
25.44, and no longer must comply with the requirements of Secs. 25.3
through 25.7.
* * * * *
Dated: December 8, 1995.
Eugene A. Ludwig,
Comptroller of the Currency.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR CHAPTER II
For the reasons discussed in the joint preamble, 12 CFR part 228 is
amended as follows:
PART 228--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 321, 325, 1828(c), 1842, 1843, 1844, and
2901 et seq.
Sec. 228.12 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 228.12(h)(3), the cross reference ``13 CFR
121.802(a)(2)'' is revised to read ``13 CFR 121.802(a) (2) and (3)''.
Sec. 228.27 [Amended]
3. In the last sentence of Sec. 228.27(h), the internal cross
reference ``paragraph (c) of this section'' is revised to read
``paragraph (d) of this section''.
4. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 228.51 is amended by adding a sentence at
the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 228.51 Transition rules.
(a) * * * Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, when a
bank, either voluntarily or mandatorily, becomes subject to the
performance tests and standards of Secs. 228.21 through 228.27, the
bank must comply with all the pertinent requirements of Secs. 228.11
through 228.44, and no longer must comply with the requirements of
Secs. 228.3 through 228.7.
* * * * *
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, December 8, 1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR CHAPTER III
For the reasons discussed in the joint preamble, 12 CFR part 345 is
amended as follows:
PART 345--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 345 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1814-1817, 1819-1820, 1828, 1831u and 2901-
2907, 3103-3104, and 3108(a).
Sec. 345.12 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 345.12(h)(3), the cross reference ``13 CFR
121.802(a)(2)'' is revised to read ``13 CFR 121.802(a) (2) and (3)''.
Sec. 345.27 [Amended]
3. In the last sentence of Sec. 345.27(h), the internal cross
reference ``paragraph (c) of this section'' is revised to read
``paragraph (d) of this section''.
4. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 345.51 is amended by adding a sentence at
the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 345.51 Transition rules.
(a) * * * Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, when a
bank, either voluntarily or mandatorily, becomes subject to the
performance tests and standards of Secs. 345.21 through 345.27, the
bank must comply with all the pertinent requirements of Secs. 345.11
through 345.44, and no longer must comply with the requirements of
Secs. 345.3 through 345.7.
* * * * *
By order of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation.
Dated: December 8, 1995.
Jerry L. Langley,
Executive Secretary.
OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION
12 CFR CHAPTER V
For the reasons discussed in the joint preamble, 12 CFR part 563e
is amended as follows:
PART 563e--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 563e continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1814, 1816,
1828(c), and 2901 through 2907.
Sec. 563e.12 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 563e.12(g)(3), the cross reference ``13 CFR
121.802(a)(2)'' is revised to read ``13 CFR 121.802(a) (2) and (3)''.
Sec. 563e.27 [Amended]
3. In the last sentence of Sec. 563e.27(h), the internal cross
reference ``paragraph (c) of this section'' is revised to read
``paragraph (d) of this section''.
4. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 563e.51 is amended by adding a sentence at
the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 563e.51 Transition rules.
(a) * * * Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, when a
savings association, either voluntarily or mandatorily, becomes subject
to the performance tests and standards of Secs. 563e.21 through
563e.27, the savings association must comply with all the pertinent
requirements of Secs. 563e.11 through 563e.44, and no longer must
comply with the requirements of Secs. 563e.3 through 563e.7.
* * * * *
[[Page 66051]]
Dated: December 13, 1995.
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Jonathan L. Fiechter,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 95-30823 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30822 Atlantic Tuna Fisheries; Bluefin Tuna
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65597-65598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30822]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 285
[I.D. 121495A]
Atlantic Tuna Fisheries; Bluefin Tuna
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure of the General category fishery.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that the 10 metric tons (mt) of Atlantic
bluefin tuna (ABT) set aside for the late-season General category
fishery in the New York Bight beginning October 1, 1995, will have been
taken by December 15, 1995. Therefore, the General category fishery
will be closed effective at 2330 hours (11:30 pm) on Friday, December
15, 1995. This action is being taken to prevent overharvest of the
quota established for this fishery.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 2330 hours on December 15, 1995, through
December 31, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kelly, 301-713-2347, or Kevin
Foster, 508-281-9260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations implemented under the authority
of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) governing
the harvest of ABT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction
are found at 50 CFR part 285. Section 285.22 subdivides the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
recommended U.S. quota among the various domestic fishing categories.
Implementing regulations for the Atlantic Tuna Fisheries at 50 CFR
285.22(a) provide for an adjusted annual quota of 550 mt of large
medium and giant ABT to be harvested from the Regulatory Area by
vessels permitted in the General category. Based on landings
[[Page 65598]]
statistics, the fishery was closed on September 12, 1995 (60 FR 48052,
September 18, 1995). A transfer of 10 mt from the longline-south
Incidental subcategory to the General category adjusted the General
category quota to 560 mt (60 FR 51932, October 4, 1995). Furthermore,
the 10 mt transfer established a geographic set-aside for the New York
Bight fishery to be fished from October 1 until the 10 mt are taken.
Based on landings statistics, NMFS has determined that the late-
season quota of ABT allocated for General category vessels fishing in
the New York Bight must be closed. Fishing for, retention of,
possession of, or landing large medium or giant ABT by vessels in the
General category must cease by 2330 hours December 15, 1995. This
action is being taken to prevent overharvest of the quota.
This closure of the late-season General category fishery will not
affect other categories fishing for ABT. The Incidental catch
categories remain open.
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 285.20(b) and is exempt from
review under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.
Dated: December 14, 1995.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30822 Filed 12-14-95; 4:57 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30780 Collection By Administrative Offset
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65568-65569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30780]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
31 CFR Part 390
Collection By Administrative Offset
AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Department of the
Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends Title 31 by removing Part 390. The
action is being taken because the Treasury Department's promulgation of
administrative offset regulations at 31 CFR Part 5, Subpart D, made
Part 390 unnecessary.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Gronseth, Deputy Chief Counsel,
Bureau of the Public Debt, Parkersburg, WV (304) 480-5187.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Part 390 applied to the collection of claims by administrative
offset by the Bureau of the Public Debt. The rule was needed to
implement the administrative offset provisions of section 10 of the
Debt Collection Act of 1982, (31 U.S.C. 3716). Subsequent to the
adoption of this rule, the Department of the Treasury promulgated
Department-wide
[[Page 65569]]
administrative offset regulations at 31 CFR Part 5, Subpart D.
Procedural Requirements
This final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' pursuant
to Executive Order 12866. This final rule merely removes a redundancy
from existing Department of the Treasury regulations. Accordingly,
notice and public procedure thereon is unnecessary. Pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause is found for making this rule effective
upon publication. As no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do
not apply. There are no collections of information required by this
final rule, and, therefore, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 390
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims.
Accordingly, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 31 CFR chapter II
is hereby amended by removing part 390.
PART 390--[REMOVED]
1. Part 390 is removed.
Dated: December 7, 1995.
Van Zeck,
Acting Commissioner of the Public Debt.
[FR Doc. 95-30780 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30776 Expansion of General License GLX and GTDR
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65526-65528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30776]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Export Administration
15 CFR Parts 771, 779 and 799
[Docket No. 951211296-5296-01]
RIN 0694-AB30
Expansion of General License GLX and GTDR
AGENCY: Bureau of Export Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule revises the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR) by expanding General License GLX eligibility to include:
microprocessors with a composite theoretical performance not exceeding
500 million theoretical operations per second; memory integrated
circuits; certain digital integrated circuits; field programmable gate
arrays and logic arrays; portable (personal) or mobile radiotelephones
not capable of end-to-end encryption; and software to protect against
computer viruses.
In addition, revisions have been made to expand eligibility for
General License GTDR with written assurance to include virus protection
software controlled under ECCN 5D13A.c.
This rule also revises the list of ``Additional Items Eligible for
General License GLX'' included in a supplement to the General License
section of the EAR to reflect the expansion of General License GLX, and
makes editorial corrections to the permissive reexport provisions for
technical data.
The expansion of General License GLX and GTDR to include additional
items will reduce paperwork and licensing delays for exporters, and
will focus controls on exports that are of direct strategic concern.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective December 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For questions of a general nature, call Nancy Crowe, Bureau of Export
Administration, Telephone: (202) 482-2440.
For questions of a technical nature on digital mobile telephones
call Joseph Young, Bureau of Export Administration, Telephone: (202)
482-4197.
[[Page 65527]]
For questions of a technical nature on semiconductors call Robert
Lerner, Bureau of Export Administration, Telephone: (202) 482-3710.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In response to the realities of a post-Cold War era, the Bureau of
Export Administration published a final rule in the Federal Register on
April 4, 1994, (59 FR 15621) that established General License GLX in
section 771.20 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). General
License GLX allows exports of many items, without the requirement of an
individual validated license, to civil end-users and end-uses in
formerly COCOM-proscribed destinations. This general license is
available for items previously covered by Administrative Exception
Notes in the Commerce Control List (CCL), with certain specified
exceptions and additions noted in the EAR. General License GLX is not
available for exports to military end-users or for known military end-
uses. In addition to conventional military activities, military end-
uses include any proliferation activities described in Part 778 of the
EAR. Retransfers to military end-users or end-uses in countries
eligible for General License GLX are strictly prohibited without prior
authorization from the Department of Commerce.
Currently, most computer and telecommunications equipment listed on
the CCL are eligible for General License GLX, except for most portable
radiotelephones, virus protection software, and electronic devices and
components. Since the formerly COCOM-proscribed destinations as well as
the People's Republic of China are emerging markets for these items,
and because this step is consistent with the national security and
foreign policy objectives of the United States, this rule expands
General License GLX for such items to ensure U.S. manufacturers remain
competitive in these areas.
This rule expands General License GLX to include: microprocessors
with a composite theoretical performance not exceeding 500 million
theoretical operation per second identified under ECCN 3A01A.a.3.;
memory integrated circuits identified under ECCN 3A01A.a.4.; digital-
to-analog converters identified under ECCN 3A01.a.5.b.; field
programmable gate arrays and logic arrays identified under ECCN
3A01A.a.7., and a.8.; digital integrated circuits identified under ECCN
3A01A.a.11.; portable (personal) or mobile radiotelephones not capable
of end-to-end encryption identified under Export Control Classification
Number (ECCN) 5A11A.a.; and software to protect against computer
viruses identified under ECCN 5D13A.c.
This rule also removes ECCNs 4B01A, 4B02A, 4B03A and 4C01A from
Supplement No. 1 to Part 771 of the EAR, Additional Items Eligible for
General License GLX. This editorial revision conforms the GLX
supplement with the removal of these ECCNs from the CCL on May 16, 1994
(59 FR 25314).
In addition, eligibility for General License GTDR with letter of
assurance has been expanded to include virus protection software
controlled under ECCN 5D13A.c. Note that such software is also eligible
for General License GLX, and exporters may use either general license,
whichever appropriate, provided that the export meets all the
provisions of the general license.
This rule also makes editorial changes to the permissive reexport
provisions for technical data based upon authorization by COCOM
participating countries. Finally, this rule makes editorial changes to
the permissive reexport provisions for the direct product of U.S.-
origin technical to clarify the original intent. These clarifications
do not provide substantive changes to the EAR.
Although the Export Administration Act (EAA) expired on August 20,
1994, the President invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act and continued in effect, to the extent permitted by law, the
provisions of the EAA and the EAR in Executive Order 12924 of August
19, 1994, and notice of August 15, 1995 (60 FR 42767).
Rulemaking Requirements
1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. This rule
involves collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These collections have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers
0694-0005, 0694-0007, 0694-0010, and 0694-0023.
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under
Executive Order 12612.
4. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or by any other law, under
sections 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603(a) and
604(a)) no initial or final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has to be
or will be prepared.
5. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable
because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs
function of the United States. Further, no other law requires that a
notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be
given for this rule.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Parts 771, 799
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
15 CFR Part 779
Computer technology, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Science and technology.
Accordingly, Parts 771, 779, and 799 of the Export Administration
Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-799) are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR Parts 771 and 799 continue to
read as follows:
Authority: 50 U.S.C. App. 5, as amended; Pub. L. 264, 59 Stat.
619 (22 U.S.C. 287c), as amended; Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (18
U.S.C. 2510 et seq.), as amended; sec. 101, Pub. L. 93-153, 87 Stat.
576 (30 U.S.C. 185), as amended; sec. 103, Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat.
877 (42 U.S.C. 6212), as amended; secs. 201 and 201(11)(e), Pub. L.
94-258, 90 Stat. 309 (10 U.S.C. 7420 and 7430(e)), as amended; Pub.
L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626 (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); Pub. L. 95-242,
92 Stat. 120 (22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 2139a); sec. 208,
Pub. L. 95-372, 92 Stat. 668 (43 U.S.C. 1354); Pub. L. 96-72, 93
Stat. 503 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.), as amended; sec. 125, Pub.
L. 99-64, 99 Stat. 156 (46 U.S.C. 466c); Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat.
2575 (22 U.S.C. 6004); E.O. 11912 of April 13, 1976 (41 FR 15825,
April 15, 1976); E.O. 12002 of July 7, 1977 (42 FR 35623, July 7,
1977), as amended; E.O. 12058 of May 11, 1978 (43 FR 20947, May 16,
1978); E.O. 12214 of May 2, 1980 (45 FR 29783, May 6, 1980); E.O.
12851 of June 11, 1993 (58 FR 33181, June 15, 1993); E.O. 12867 of
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51747, October 4, 1993); E.O 12918 of May
26, 1994 (59 FR 28205, May 31, 1994); E.O. 12924 of August 19, 1994
(59 FR 43437 of August 23, 1994); and E.O. 12938 of November 14,
1994 (59 FR 59099 of November 16, 1994).
2. The authority citation for 15 CFR Part 779 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 65528]]
Authority: Pub. L. 96-72, 93 Stat. 503 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et
seq.), as amended; Pub. L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626 (50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.); Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.), as
amended Pub. L. 95-242, 92 Stat. 120 (22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq. and 42
U.S.C. 2139a); Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat. 2575 (22 U.S.C. 6004);
E.O. 12002 of July 7, 1977 (42 FR 35623, July 7, 1977), as amended;
E.O. 12058 of May 11, 1978 (43 FR 20947, May 16, 1978); E.O. 12214
of May 2, 1980 (45 FR 29783, May 6, 1980); E.O. 12730 of September
30, 1990 (55 FR 40373, October 2, 1990), as continued by Notice of
September 25, 1992 (57 FR 44649, September 28, 1992); E.O. 12924 of
August 19, 1994 (59 FR 43437, August 23, 1994); and E.O. 12938 of
November 14, 1994 (59 FR 59099 of November 16, 1994).
PART 771--[AMENDED]
3. Supplement No. 1 to Part 771, is revised to read as follows:
Supplement No. 1 to Part 771--Additional Items Eligible for General
License GLX
Note: Portions of some items listed in this Supplement are
controlled for missile technology (MT), nuclear proliferation (NP),
or foreign policy (FP) reasons. Exporters are reminded that such
portions are not eligible for General License GLX. Refer to the
specific ECCNs to identify those portions of entries subject to MT,
NP, or FP controls.
CATEGORY 1
1D01A
1D02A
CATEGORY 2
2A01A
2A02A
2A03A
2A04A
2A06A
2B03A.a
CATEGORY 3
3A01A.a.3. (up to 500 Mtops only)
3A01A.a.4.
3A01A.a.5 (except a.5.a.)
3A01A.a.7.
3A01A.a.8.
3A01A.a.11
3A02A.h.
CATEGORY 4
4A03A.d (having a 3-D vector rate less than 10M vectors/sec.)
4A03A.f
CATEGORY 5
5A02A (except .h and .i)
5A03A
5A04A
5A05A
5A06A
5A11A.a (portable or mobile radiotelephones for use with
commercial civil cellular radiocommunications systems, not capable of
end-to-end encryption)
5B01A
5B02A
5C01A
5D01A
5D02A
5D03A
5D13A.c
CATEGORY 6
6A01A.b
6A02A.a.4
6A03A.a.1
6A04A.f
6A05A.c.2.a
6A05A.d
6A05A.e
6B05A
6A08A.b
6A08A.c
6A08A.l.1.
6C02A.c
6C04A.h
6D03A.d
CATEGORY 8
8A02A.e.2
CATEGORY 9
9B01A.a
9B02A.b
9B01A.f
9B01A.h
9B05A
9B06A
PART 779--[AMENDED]
Sec. 779.8 [Amended]
5. Section 779.8 is amended:
a. By revising the word ``exported'' in paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read
``reexported'';
b. by revising the phrase ``export or reexport'' in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii) and (b)(2)(iv) to read ``reexport''; and
c. by revising the phrase ``export or reexport'' in paragraph
(b)(3) to read ``export from abroad''.
PART 799--[AMENDED]
Supplement No. 1 to Sec. 799.1--[Amended]
6. In Supplement No. 1 to Section 799.1, section II of Category 5
(Telecommunications and ``Information Security''), ECCN 5D13A is
amended by revising the Requirements section to read as follows:
5D13A Specific ``Software'' as Follows
Requirements
Validated License Required: QSTVWYZ
Unit: $ value
Reason for Control: NS
GTDR: Yes, for 5D13.c and software described in Advisory Note 5
only. (See Note)
GTDU: No
Note: Exporter must have determined that the software is not
controlled by the Office of Defense Trade Controls, Department of
State, before using this general license.
* * * * *
Dated: December 14, 1995.
Sue E. Eckert,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-30776 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30772 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Model S-58A, S-58B, S-58C, S-58D, S-58E, S-58F, S-58G, S-58H, S-58J, S-58BT, S-58DT, S- 58ET, S-58FT, S-58HT, and S-58JT Helicopters
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65519-65521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30772]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-SW-21-AD; Amendment 39-9466; AD 95-26-08]
Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Model S-58A, S-58B,
S-58C, S-58D, S-58E, S-58F, S-58G, S-58H, S-58J, S-58BT, S-58DT, S-
58ET, S-58FT, S-58HT, and S-58JT Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is applicable to Sikorsky Aircraft Model S-58A, S-58B, S-58C, S-58D, S-
58E, S-58F, S-58G, S-58H, S-58J, S-58BT, S-58DT, S-58ET, S-58FT, S-
58HT, and S-58JT helicopters. This action requires initial and
repetitive magnetic particle inspections of the main rotor shaft
(shaft) for cracks, and defines power limitations for certain
helicopter operations. This amendment is prompted by a recent accident
in which a shaft failed, resulting in loss of power. Subsequent
inspections on other aircraft of the same type revealed cracks in four
additional shafts. The actions specified in this AD are intended to
prevent failure of the shaft, loss of power to the rotor system, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
DATES: Effective January 4, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before February 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:
Rules Docket No. 95-SW-21-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Francis X. Walsh, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299, telephone (617)
238-7158, fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment adopts a new AD that is
applicable to Sikorsky Aircraft Model S-58A, S-58B, S-58C, S-58D, S-
58E, S-58F, S-58G, S-58H, S-58J, S-58BT, S-58DT, S-58ET, S-58FT, S-
58HT, and S-58JT helicopters with shaft assembly, part number (P/N)
S1635-20059-2, installed. This AD is prompted by an accident in which
the failure of a shaft resulted in the crash of a helicopter. Since
that accident, inspections have revealed cracks in four additional
shafts. The shaft transmits power to the main rotor system to provide
lift for the helicopter. Failure of this shaft results in loss of power
to the main rotor system and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter. Due to the criticality of the shaft, this AD must be issued
immediately to correct an unsafe condition in the affected helicopters.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other Sikorsky Aircraft Model S-58A, S-58B, S-58C,
S-58D, S-58E, S-58F, S-58G, S-58H, S-58J, S-58BT, S-58DT, S-58ET, S-
58FT, S-58HT, and S-58JT helicopters of the same type design, this AD
is being issued to prevent failure of the shaft, loss of power to the
rotor system, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This AD
requires determining the operational cycles-per-hour on the
helicopters, removing the shaft assembly from the main gear box, and
inspecting the shaft for cracks using a magnetic particle inspection
method within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS). Following this
initial inspection, repetitive magnetic particle inspections are
required. Additionally, this AD prescribes operating limitations for
certain helicopter operations.-
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 95-SW-21-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
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.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant
[[Page 65520]]
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined
further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If
it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final
regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.
A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from 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 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:
AD 95-26-08 Sikorsky Aircraft: Amendment 39-9466. Docket No. 95-SW-
21-AD.
Applicability: Model S-58A, S-58B, S-58C, S-58D, S-58E, S-58F,
S-58G, S-58H, S-58J, S-58BT, S-58DT, S-58ET, S-58FT, S-58HT, and S-
58JT helicopters with main rotor shaft assembly (shaft assembly),
part number (P/N) S1635-20059-2, installed, certificated in any
category.
Note 1: The shaft assembly consists of a main rotor shaft, P/N
S1635-20059; an upper end plug, P/N S1635-20153; and a lower end
plug, P/N S1635-20154. The shaft assembly P/N (S1635-20059-2) is
marked on the edge of the main rotor shaft lower flange.
Note 2: This AD applies to each helicopter 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 helicopters that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (j) to request approval from the FAA. This
approval may address either no action, if the current configuration
eliminates the unsafe condition, or different actions necessary to
address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such a request
should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any helicopter from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent failure of the main rotor shaft (shaft) loss of power
to the rotor system, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) From available helicopter records, determine the maximum
number of actual operational cycles-per-hour of the current shaft
assembly since installation. An operational cycle is defined as one
turnaround (external lift cycle) for external load operations, and
as one takeoff and one landing for internal load operations. A
turnaround is defined as picking up an external load, transporting
that load to a drop-off point, releasing the load, and flying to the
next load pickup point. If the maximum number of actual operational
cycles-per-hour cannot be determined, use 25-operational cycles-per-
hour as the maximum operational cycles-per-hour for purposes of this
AD. Record the determined number of operational usage cycles-per-
hour of the shaft assembly in the appropriate aircraft maintenance
records.
(1) If the maximum operational cycles-per-hour has ever equaled
or exceeded 20 cycles-per-hour, inspect in accordance with paragraph
(b) of this AD within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS),
unless previously accomplished within the last 200 hours TIS.
(2) If the maximum operational cycles-per-hour has never
exceeded 19 cycles-per-hour, inspect the shaft in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this AD within the next 50 hours TIS, unless
previously accomplished.
(b) Remove the shaft assembly, P/N S1635-20059-2, from the main
gear box. Remove the upper end plug, P/N S1635-20153 and lower end
plug, P/N S1635-20154, from the shaft assembly, and conduct a
magnetic particle inspection (MPI) of the shaft for cracks in
accordance with MIL-STD-1949 or ASTM E-1444. Pay particular
attention to the inside diameter of the 0.7515-0.7510-inch diameter
dowel pin holes in the flange and adjacent flange surfaces.
Note 3: Section 2D of Sikorsky Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin
58B35-34, dated June 9, 1995, contains a procedure for conducting a
MPI of the shaft (in agreement with MIL-STD-1949 or ASTM E-1444).
(c) Conduct repetitive MPI's of the shaft for cracks as follows:
(1) If the maximum operational cycles-per-hour has ever equaled
or exceeded 20 cycles-per-hour, repeat the MPI at intervals not to
exceed 250 hours TIS from the date of the last inspection.
(2) If the maximum operational cycles-per-hour exceeds 6 cycles-
per-hour, but has always been less than 20 cycles-per-hour, repeat
the MPI at 1,250 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 250 hours TIS from the date of the last inspection. If the
last inspection was accomplished between 1,000 hours TIS and 1,250
hours TIS, begin the repetitive inspections within 250 hours TIS
from the date of the last inspection instead of at 1,250 hours TIS.
(3) If the maximum operational cycles-per-hour has never
exceeded 6 cycles-per-hour, repeat the MPI at 1,250 hours TIS. If
the last inspection was accomplished between 1,000 hours TIS and
1,250 hours TIS, repeat the MPI within 250 hours TIS from the date
of the last inspection instead of at 1,250 hours TIS.
(d) Report all inspection results to the Manager, Boston
Aircraft Certification Office, using the Attachment provided later
in this AD. Reporting requirements have been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056.
(e) If no crack is discovered, replace the upper and lower end
plugs and reinstall the shaft assembly into the main gearbox.
(f) If any crack is discovered or on or before the shaft
assembly reaches 2,500 hours TIS, replace the shaft assembly with an
airworthy shaft assembly, P/N S1635-20059-2. If the replacement
shaft has previously been in service, determine the maximum
operational cycles-per-hour in accordance with paragraph (a) and
inspect in accordance with this AD.
Note 4: In accordance with the applicable maintenance manual,
2,500 hours TIS is the mandatory retirement life for the shaft
assembly, P/N S1635-20059-2.
(g) If the main rotor shaft assembly installed on the helicopter
has ever equaled or exceeded 20 or more operational cycles-per-hour,
insert the following restrictions into the Limitations section of
the Rotorcraft Flight Manual:
(1) For turbine engine installations: ``The main rotor shaft
assembly installed on this helicopter has been operated at 20 or
more cycles-per-hour. Engine power is restricted to maximum
continuous power at 93%Nf. Takeoff power operations are
prohibited.''
(2) For reciprocating engine installations: ``The main rotor
shaft assembly installed on this helicopter has been operated at 20
or more cycles-per-hour. Engine power is restricted to maximum
continuous power at 2,500 RPM. Takeoff power operations are
prohibited.''
(h) If the main rotor shaft assembly installed on the helicopter
has ever equaled or exceeded 20 or more operational cycles-per-hour,
install on the instrument panel, adjacent to the pilot's engine
(Nf or RPM) tachometer, torquemeter, or manifold pressure
gauges, a placard made of material that is not easily erased,
disfigured, or obscured that contains the following statement in
lettering of 0.2 inch minimum height and stated in one or two lines:
(1) For turbine engine installations: ``MAX PWR: 101% Q AT 93%
Nf''
(2) For reciprocating engine installations: ``MAX PWR: 47.5 IN.
HG at 2,500 RPM''
(i) Continue to record operational cycles-per-hour of the shaft
assembly in the appropriate maintenance records. If operational
cycles-per-hour increases on an affected shaft assembly to the
extent that it places the shaft assembly into a higher cycles-per-
hour usage group, the applicable requirements and limitations
contained in this AD for the higher usage group apply to that shaft
assembly. A replacement shaft assembly must comply with all
requirements
[[Page 65521]]
and limitations of this AD as applicable. If the number of operational
cycles-per-hour determined for a replacement shaft assembly does not
equal or exceed 20 cycles-per-hour, the Rotorcraft Flight Manual
limitation specified in paragraph (g) and the placard specified in
paragraph (h) may be removed.
(j) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used when approved by the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA, New England Region. Operators shall submit their
requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may
concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office.
Note 5: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Boston Aircraft Certification Office.
(k) 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 helicopter to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(l) This amendment becomes effective on January 4, 1996.
Attachment--Inspection Results Report
The following information must be reported as soon as possible, but
no later than 7 days after inspection, to: Manager, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299, FAX: (617) 238-7199.
Operator/Repair Station __________
Aircraft Model No. __________
Aircraft Serial No. __________
Date of Inspection __________
Main Rotor Part No. __________
Main Rotor Serial No. __________
Type of Aircraft Utilization:
Passenger Carry __________
Utility/Construction __________
Firefighting __________
Logging __________
Other __________
Identify Operational Usage Cycles-Per-Hour:
1-6 Operational Cycles-Per-Hour __________
7-19 Operational Cycles-Per-Hour __________
20-Above Operational Cycles-Per-Hour __________
Next Inspection Date (Estimated): __________
and Flight Hours (Estimated): __________
Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) Results (this inspection):
Passed __________ Failed __________
If a crack is found, indicate the approximate location on the part and
the length of the crack in inches: ____________
Total Time-In-Service (TIS) (Hours):
Estimated __________
Actual __________
Unknown __________
At Retirement __________
Inspection results at retirement (if known):
MPI Passed __________
Failed __________
Visual Passed __________
Failed __________
Log Book Entry for Part No. __________, Serial No. __________, is
(date) __________, at Retirement Hours __________. This part's Serial
No. has been marked unairworthy and unfit for further service on (date)
__________, 199 ____.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 13, 1995.
Daniel P. Salvano,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30772 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30771 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft-manufactured Model CH-34A, CH-34C, H-34A, HH-34J, HSS-1, HSS-1N, HUS-1, SH-34J, UH-34D, UH-34E, and UH-34J Helicopters
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65516-65519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30771]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-SW-28-AD; Amendment 39-9467; AD 95-26-09]
Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft-manufactured Model
CH-34A, CH-34C, H-34A, HH-34J, HSS-1, HSS-1N, HUS-1, SH-34J, UH-34D,
UH-34E, and UH-34J Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is
[[Page 65517]]
applicable to Sikorsky Aircraft-manufactured Model CH-34A, CH-34C, H-
34A, HH-34J, HSS-1, HSS-1N, HUS-1, SH-34J, UH-34D, UH-34E, and UH-34J
helicopters. This action requires initial and repetitive magnetic
particle inspections of the main rotor shaft (shaft) for cracks, and
defines power limitations for certain helicopter operations. This
amendment is prompted by a recent accident in which a shaft failed,
resulting in loss of power. Subsequent inspections on other aircraft of
the same type revealed cracks in four additional shafts. The actions
specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the shaft, loss
of power to the rotor system, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.
DATES: Effective January 4, 1996. -
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before February 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:
Rules Docket No. 95-SW-28-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Francis X. Walsh, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299, telephone (617)
238-7158, fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment adopts a new AD that is
applicable to Sikorsky Aircraft-manufactured Model CH-34A, CH-34C, H-
34A, HH-34J, HSS-1, HSS-1N, HUS-1, SH-34J, UH-34D, UH-34E, and UH-34J
helicopters with shaft assembly, part number (P/N) S1635-20059-2,
installed. This AD is prompted by an accident in which the failure of a
shaft resulted in the crash of a helicopter. Since that accident,
inspections have revealed cracks in four additional shafts. The shaft
transmits power to the main rotor system to provide lift for the
helicopter. Failure of this shaft results in loss of power to the main
rotor system and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Due to
the criticality of the shaft, this AD must be issued immediately to
correct an unsafe condition in the affected helicopters. -
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other Sikorsky Aircraft-manufactured Model CH-34A,
CH-34C, H-34A, HH-34J, HSS-1, HSS-1N, HUS-1, SH-34J, UH-34D, UH-34E,
and UH-34J helicopters of the same type design, this AD is being issued
to prevent failure of the shaft, loss of power to the rotor system, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This AD requires
determining the operational cycles-per-hour on the helicopter, removing
the shaft assembly from the main gear box, and inspecting the shaft for
cracks using a magnetic particle inspection method within the next 50
hours time-in-service (TIS). Following this initial inspection,
repetitive magnetic particle inspections are required. Additionally,
this AD prescribes operating limitations for certain helicopter
operations. -
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited -
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed. -
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket. -
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 95-SW-28-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter. -
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. -
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further
that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is
determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final
regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.
A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from 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 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended] -
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:
AD 95-26-09 Federico Helicopters; Invest in Opportunities, Inc.;
Orlando Helicopter Airways; Consolidated Air Crane, Inc.; and
Pacific Aviation, Inc.: Amendment 39-9467. Docket No. 95-SW-28-AD
-Applicability: Sikorsky Aircraft-manufactured Model CH-34A,
CH-34C, H-34A, HH-34J, HSS-1, HSS-1N, HUS-1, SH-34J, UH-34D, UH-34E,
and UH-34J helicopters with main rotor shaft assembly (shaft
assembly), part number (P/N) S1635-20059-2, installed, certificated
in any category.
-
[[Page 65518]]
Note 1: The shaft assembly consists of a main rotor shaft, P/N
S1635-20059; an upper end plug, P/N S1635-20153; and a lower end
plug, P/N S1635-20154. The shaft assembly P/N (S1635-20059-2) is
marked on the edge of the main rotor shaft lower flange. -
Note 2: This AD applies to each helicopter 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 helicopters that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (j) to request approval from the FAA. This
approval may address either no action, if the current configuration
eliminates the unsafe condition, or different actions necessary to
address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such a request
should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any helicopter from the applicability of this AD.
-Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. -
To prevent failure of the main rotor shaft (shaft), loss of
power to the rotor system, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter, accomplish the following: -
(a) From available helicopter records, determine the maximum
number of actual operational cycles-per-hour of the current shaft
assembly since installation. An operational cycle is defined as one
turnaround (external lift cycle) for external load operations, and
as one takeoff and one landing for internal load operations. A
turnaround is defined as picking up an external load, transporting
that load to a drop-off point, releasing the load, and flying to the
next load pickup point. If the maximum number of actual operational
cycles-per-hour cannot be determined, use 25-operational cycles-per-
hour as the maximum operational cycles-per-hour for purposes of this
AD. Record the determined number of operational usage cycles-per-
hour of the shaft assembly in the appropriate aircraft maintenance
records. -
(1) If the maximum operational cycles-per-hour has ever equaled
or exceeded 20 cycles-per-hour, inspect in accordance with paragraph
(b) of this AD within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS),
unless previously accomplished within the last 200 hours TIS. -
(2) If the maximum operational cycles-per-hour has never
exceeded 19 cycles-per-hour, inspect the shaft in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this AD within the next 50 hours TIS, unless
previously accomplished. -
(b) Remove the shaft assembly, P/N S1635-20059-2, from the main
gear box. Remove the upper end plug, P/N S1635-20153, and lower end
plug, P/N S1635-20154, from the shaft assembly, and conduct a
magnetic particle inspection (MPI) of the shaft for cracks in
accordance with MIL-STD-1949 or ASTM E-1444. Pay particular
attention to the inside diameter of the 0.7515 - 0.7510-inch
diameter dowel pin holes in the flange and adjacent flange surfaces.
-Note 3: Section 2D of Sikorsky Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin
58B35-34, dated June 9, 1995, contains a procedure for conducting a
MPI of the shaft (in agreement with MIL-STD-1949 or ASTM E-1444).
-(c) Conduct repetitive MPI's of the shaft for cracks as
follows: -
(1) If the maximum operational cycles-per-hour has ever equaled
or exceeded 20 cycles-per-hour, repeat the MPI at intervals not to
exceed 250 hours TIS from the date of the last inspection. -
(2) If the maximum operational cycles-per-hour exceeds 6 cycles-
per-hour, but has always been less than 20 cycles-per-hour, repeat
the MPI at 1,250 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 250 hours TIS from the date of the last inspection. If the
last inspection was accomplished between 1,000 hours TIS and 1,250
hours TIS, begin the repetitive inspections within 250 hours TIS
from the date of the last inspection instead of at 1,250 hours TIS.
-
(3) If the maximum operational cycles-per-hour has never
exceeded 6 cycles-per-hour, repeat the MPI at 1,250 hours TIS. If
the last inspection was accomplished between 1,000 hours TIS and
1,250 hours TIS, repeat the MPI within 250 hours TIS from the date
of the last inspection instead of at 1,250 hours TIS. -
(d) Report all inspection results to the Manager, Boston
Aircraft Certification Office, using the Attachment provided later
in this AD. Reporting requirements have been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056.
-
(e) If no crack is discovered, replace the upper and lower end
plugs into the shaft and reinstall the shaft assembly into the main
gearbox. -
(f) If any crack is discovered or on or before the shaft
assembly reaches 2,500 hours TIS, replace the shaft assembly with an
airworthy shaft assembly, P/N S1635-20059-2. If the replacement
shaft has previously been in service, determine the maximum
operational cycles-per-hour in accordance with paragraph (a) and
inspect in accordance with this AD.
-Note 4: In accordance with the applicable maintenance manual,
2,500 hours TIS is the mandatory retirement life for the shaft
assembly, P/N S1635-20059-2.
-(g) If the main rotor shaft assembly installed on the
helicopter has ever equaled or exceeded 20 or more operational
cycles-per-hour, insert the following restrictions into the
Limitations section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual: -
(1) For turbine engine installations: ``The main rotor shaft
assembly installed on this helicopter has been operated at 20 or
more cycles-per-hour. Engine power is restricted to maximum
continuous power at 93%Nf. Takeoff power operations are
prohibited.'' -
(2) For reciprocating engine installations: ``The main rotor
shaft assembly installed on this helicopter has been operated at 20
or more cycles-per-hour. Engine power is restricted to maximum
continuous power at 2,500 RPM. Takeoff power operations are
prohibited.'' -
(h) If the main rotor shaft assembly installed on the helicopter
has ever equaled or exceeded 20 or more operational cycles-per-hour,
install on the instrument panel, adjacent to the pilot's engine
(Nf or RPM) tachometer, torquemeter, or manifold pressure
gauges, a placard made of material that is not easily erased,
disfigured, or obscured that contains the following statement in
lettering of 0.2 inch minimum height and stated in one or two lines:
-
(1) For turbine engine installations: -
``MAX PWR: 101% Q AT 93% Nf'' -
(2) For reciprocating engine installations: -
``MAX PWR: 47.5 IN. HG AT 2,500 RPM'' -
(i) Continue to record operational cycles-per-hour of the shaft
assembly in the appropriate maintenance records. If operational
cycles-per-hour increases on an affected shaft assembly to the
extent that it places the shaft assembly into a higher cycles-per-
hour usage group, the applicable requirements and limitations
contained in this AD for the higher usage group apply to that shaft
assembly. A replacement shaft assembly must comply with all
requirements and limitations of this AD as applicable. If the number
of operational cycles-per-hour determined for a replacement shaft
assembly does not equal or exceed 20 cycles-per-hour, the Rotorcraft
Flight Manual limitation specified in paragraph (g) and the placard
required by paragraph (h) may be removed.
-Note 5: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Boston Aircraft Certification Office.
-(j) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used when approved by the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA, New England Region. Operators shall submit their
requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may
concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office. -
(k) 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 helicopter to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(l) This amendment becomes effective on January 4, 1996.
Attachment
Inspection Results Report
The following information must be reported as soon as possible,
but no later than 7 days after inspection, to: Manager, Boston
Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299, FAX: (617)
238-7199.
Operator/Repair Station------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Model No.-----------------------------------------------------
Aircraft Serial No.----------------------------------------------------
Date of Inspection-----------------------------------------------------
Main Rotor Part No.----------------------------------------------------
Main Rotor Serial No.--------------------------------------------------
Type of Aircraft Utilization:
Passenger Carry------------------------------------------------------
Firefighting---------------------------------------------------------
Utility/Construction-------------------------------------------------
Logging--------------------------------------------------------------
Other----------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65519]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Identify Operational Usage Cycles-Per-Hour:
1-6 Operational
Cycles-Per-Hour----------------------------------------------------
7-19 Operational
Cycles-Per-Hour----------------------------------------------------
20-Above Operational
Cycles-Per-Hour----------------------------------------------------
Next Inspection Date (Estimated):--------------------------------------
and Flight Hours (Estimated):------------------------------------------
Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) Results (this inspection): Passed
______ Failed ______
If a crack is found, indicate the approximate location on the part
and the length of the crack in inches: ________________
Total Time-In-Service (TIS) (Hours):
Estimated------------------------------------------------------------
Actual---------------------------------------------------------------
Unknown--------------------------------------------------------------
At Retirement--------------------------------------------------------
Inspection results at retirement (if known):
MPI Passed ______ Failed ______
Visual Passed ______-Failed ______
Log Book Entry for Part No. ____________, Serial No. ____________,
is (date) ________, at Retirement Hours ____________. This part's
Serial No. has been marked unairworthy and unfit for further service
on (date) ____________, 199 ____.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 13, 1995.
Daniel P. Salvano,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30771 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30752 Financial Assistance Rules: Eligibility Determination for Certain Financial Assistance Programs
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65509-65515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30752]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 65509]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 600
[Docket No. PO-RM-95-101]
Financial Assistance Rules: Eligibility Determination for Certain
Financial Assistance Programs
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy is amending its Financial Assistance
Rules by adding a final statement of policy, including procedures and
interpretations, to guide DOE officials in making determinations
required by section 2306 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT)
concerning eligibility to receive financial assistance under DOE
programs authorized by Titles XX through XXIII of EPACT.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Robert C. Marlay, Office of
Science Policy (Mail Stop PO-81), Office of Policy, U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202)
586-3900. Paul Sherry, Esq., Office of General Counsel (Mail Stop GC-
61), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-2440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Discussion of Public Comments
III. Procedural Requirements
I. Background
This notice sets forth a final general statement of policy,
including procedures and interpretations, concerning implementation of
the requirements of section 2306 of EPACT (42 U.S.C. 13525). This
general statement of policy will guide implementing DOE officials in
making a special eligibility determination prerequisite to a financial
assistance award to a company under Titles XX through XXIII of EPACT.
Those titles relate to research, development, demonstration and
commercialization programs in diverse areas of energy efficiency,
energy supply, and related basic research.
Section 2306 provides for a two-part determination. An applicant
must be found to satisfy the conditions of both parts in order to be
eligible. The first part, set out in section 2306(1), involves a
finding with regard to whether an award of financial assistance to the
applicant would be in the economic interest of the United States. 42
U.S.C. 13525(1). The statute provides some illustrative examples of the
kinds of evidence that would support such a finding: investments in the
United States in research, development, and manufacturing; significant
contributions to employment in the United States; and agreements, with
respect to any technology arising from financial assistance provided,
to promote the manufacture within the United States of products
resulting from that technology and to procure parts and materials for
such manufacture from competitive suppliers.
The second part of the determination, section 2306(2), involves two
subparts, one of which must be satisfied. 42 U.S.C. 13525(2). The first
subpart is satisfied if the applicant is a ``United States-owned
company.'' The second subpart is satisfied if the applicant is found to
be incorporated in the United States and the applicant's parent company
is incorporated in a foreign country that: (a) affords opportunities to
United States-owned companies comparable to those afforded to any other
company to participate in government-supported joint ventures in energy
research and development; (b) affords opportunities to United States-
owned companies comparable to those afforded to any other company with
regard to general investment opportunities; and (c) affords adequate
and effective protection of intellectual property rights owned by
United States-owned companies.
The current list of covered programs is set forth below. This list
will be updated as appropriate and published in the Federal Register to
account for changes in activities undertaken in relation to Titles XX
through XXIII of EPACT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Covered programs EPACT sections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil energy R & D Petroleum: All Programs................ Sec. 2011, 2012
Gas: Natural Gas Research.................................. Sec. 2013-2015, 2112
All programs, including:
Resource & Extraction.............................. Sec. 2013, 2014
Delivery & Storage................................. Sec. 2013, 2014
Utilization........................................ Sec. 2013, 2014
Turbines........................................... Sec. 2112
Environmental Research & Regulatory Analysis....... Sec. 2013, 2014
Mid-continent Energy Research Center............... Sec. 2013, 2015
Fuel cells: Sec. 2115
All Programs, including:
Advanced Research.................................. Sec. 2115
Molten Carbonate Systems........................... Sec. 2115
Advanced Concepts.................................. Sec. 2115
Energy conservation:
Transportation......................................... Sec. 2021-2025, 2027, 2028, 2112
Alternative Fuels Utilization.......................... Sec. 2021, 2023
Materials Development.................................. Sec. 2021
[[Page 65510]]
Heat Engine Development................................ Sec. 2021, 2112
Electric & Hybrid Propulsion........................... Sec. 2021, 2025
Development Implementation & Deployment................ Sec. 2021
Management............................................. Sec. 2021
Capital Equipment...................................... Sec. 2021
Advanced Automotive Fuel Economy....................... Sec. 2021, 2022
Biofuels User Facility................................. Sec. 2021, 2024
Advanced Diesel Emissions Program...................... Sec. 2021, 2027
Telecommuting Study.................................... Sec. 2021, 2028
Utility: All programs...................................... Sec. 2101
Industry................................................... Sec. 2101-2108
All Programs, including:
Industrial Wastes.................................. Sec. 2101
Municipal Solid Wastes............................. Sec. 2101
Cogeneration....................................... Sec. 2101
Electric Drives.................................... Sec. 2101, 2105
Materials and Metals Processing.................... Sec. 2101, 2107
Other Process Efficiency........................... Sec. 2101
Process Heating & Cooling.......................... Sec. 2101, 2102
Implementation & Deployment............................ Sec. 2101
Management......................................... Sec. 2101
Capital Equipment.................................. Sec. 2101
National Advanced Manufacturing Tech............... Sec. 2101, 2202
Initiative Pulp & Paper............................ Sec. 2101, 2103
Steel, Aluminum, and Metal Research................ Sec. 2101, 2106
Energy Efficient Environmental Program............. Sec. 2101, 2108
Buildings.................................................. Sec. 2101-2108
All Programs, including:
Federal Energy Management Program.................. Sec. 2101
Implementation & Deployment........................ Sec. 2101
Management and Planning............................ Sec. 2101
Capital Equipment.................................. Sec. 2101
Advanced Buildings for 2005........................ Sec. 2101, 2104
Building Systems................................... Sec. 2101
Building Envelope.................................. Sec. 2101
Building Equipment................................. Sec. 2101
Codes and Standards................................ Sec. 2101
Energy Supply R & D: Energy Research:......................
Fusion Energy.......................................... Sec. 2114
All Programs, including:
Confinement Systems............................ Sec. 2114
Development & Technology....................... Sec. 2114
Applied Plasma Physics................................. Sec. 2114
Planning & Projects.................................... Sec. 2114
Inertial Fusion Energy................................. Sec. 2114
Program Direction-Op Exp............................... Sec. 2114
Capital Equipment & Construction....................... Sec. 2114
Basic Energy Sciences...................................... Sec. 2203
All Activities, including:
Materials Sciences................................. Sec. 2203
Chemical Sciences.................................. Sec. 2203
Energy Biosciences................................. Sec. 2203
Engineering & Geosciences.......................... Sec. 2203
Applied Math Sciences.............................. Sec. 2203, 2204
Advanced Energy Projects........................... Sec. 2203
Program Direction.................................. Sec. 2203
Capital Equipment.................................. Sec. 2203
Advisory & Oversight/Program Direction................. Sec. 2203
Advanced Neutron Source................................ Sec. 2203
Energy Research Analysis............................... Sec. 2203
University & Science Education Programs................ Sec. 2203
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. Sec. 2203
Laboratory Technology Transfer......................... Sec. 2203
Multi-Program Laboratory Support....................... Sec. 2203
Nuclear Energy:
Light Water Reactor.................................... Sec. 2123, 2126
Advanced Reactor R & D................................. Sec. 2121, 2122, 2124, 2126
Facilities............................................. Sec. 2126
Solar & Renewables:
Solar & Other Energy................................... Sec. 2021, 2026, 2111, 2117
All Programs, including:
Photovoltaics...................................... Sec. 2111
Biofuels........................................... Sec. 2021, 2013, 2024, 2111
Solar Technology Transfer.......................... Sec. 2111
[[Page 65511]]
Program Direction--Other Solar Energy.............. Sec. 2111
Solar Building Technology Research................. Sec. 2111, 2104
Solar Thermal Energy Systems....................... Sec. 2111
Wind Energy Systems................................ Sec. 2111
Ocean Energy Systems............................... Sec. 2111
International Solar Energy Program................. Sec. 2111
Resource Assessment................................ Sec. 2111
Program Support.................................... Sec. 2111
Geothermal............................................. Sec. 2111
Hydrogen Research...................................... Sec. 2026
Electric Energy Systems including: Superconductivity... Sec. 2117, 2111
Energy Storage Systems................................. Sec. 2111
Environmental Rest & Waste Management:
Facility Transition--Fast Flux Test Facility........... Sec. 2116
Civilian Waste R & D................................... Sec. 2113
Electric & Magnetic Fields Research and Public Sec. 2118
Dissemination Program.
Spark M. Matsunaga Renewable Energy & Ocean Technology Sec. 2111, 2119
Center.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 23, 1995, DOE published a proposed statement of policy
for public comment in the Federal Register (60 FR 10296). The public
comment period ended April 24, 1995. The Department received seven
comments. In addition, a public hearing was held on April 19, 1995, in
Washington, DC. Comments were received from the Delegation of the
European Commission, individual corporations, and associations
representing corporations and commercial interests. The official
rulemaking record is available in the Department's Freedom of
Information reading room.
II. Discussion of Public Comments
A. Applicability of Eligibility Requirements
One commenter questioned the Department's overall approach of
implementing section 2306 through a ``general statement of policy''
which allows DOE officials considerable flexibility. The commenter
noted that Sec. 2306 is mandatory, not advisory, and that the
Department's interpretation of what constitutes compliance with this
provision should also be mandatory in the form of a final binding rule.
In addition, the commenter expressed the view that allowing discretion
in applying section 2306 will lead to arbitrary and inconsistent
results.
The policy statement recognizes the limitations of DOE's discretion
by announcing that ``Department officials must, in all cases, comply
with the requirements of the statute.'' The Department has decided to
adopt a general statement of policy which provides uniform guidance for
DOE officials and potential DOE program applicants, but allows
implementing officials discretion in applying this policy to a large
number of programs in diverse energy areas.
Most importantly, the Department's general statement of policy sets
forth a reasonable decisionmaking framework for the purpose of allowing
full compliance with--not avoidance of--section 2306. This
decisionmaking framework has been designed to avoid arbitrary
decisionmaking by ensuring that all implementation actions under
section 2306 comply with the requirements of that provision.
Several comments were received concerning the ``retroactive''
application of section 2306 by the Department. One commenter asserted
that the Department should not retroactively impose conditions on
program participants granted awards prior to the enactment of EPACT.
Section 2306, which governs the award of financial assistance
covered by Titles XX to XXIII of EPACT, became effective on October 24,
1992. The eligibility requirements will not be applied to financial
assistance awards made prior to the effective date of the Act. This
policy statement will apply to any new financial assistance awards or
renewals of such awards under covered programs made after the effective
date stated in this notice.
Several commenters also raised retroactivity issues with respect to
which programs are covered. One commenter asserted that section 2306
applies to programs authorized by EPACT but commenced prior to the
passage of that Act. Another commenter disagreed and asserted that DOE
improperly proposed to apply section 2306 to programs that pre-date the
enactment of EPACT. Departmental programs that pre-date EPACT but are
referenced in Titles XX through XXIII of the Act will be considered
covered programs as of the effective date of the Act.
Two commenters expressed opposing views with respect to the scope
of programs ``under Titles XX through XXIII'' of EPACT. One commenter
asserted that the requirements of section 2306 should be applied
broadly. Another commenter asserted that it would be inappropriate to
apply section 2306 to programs not specifically authorized under titles
XX through XXIII of EPACT. The Department has developed the list of
covered programs set forth above to include both activities
specifically authorized by Titles XX through XXIII of EPACT and other
activities that are reasonably judged to be undertaken pursuant to
program directions set out in those titles.
B. Definitions
Two comments were received concerning the proposed definition of
``financial assistance.'' One commenter agreed with the Department's
proposal to define ``financial assistance'' to include grants and
cooperative agreements and not contracts, subcontracts, and cooperative
research and development agreements (CRADAs). Another commenter argued
that the exclusion of contracts and subcontracts from the definition
thwarts the intent of Congress and reduces the applicability of the
statute to ``near zero.''
The term ``financial assistance'' is not defined in EPACT, and the
legislative history to that Act is silent as to its intended meaning.
The Department has chosen to apply its pre-existing definition of the
term ``financial assistance'', found at 10 CFR 600.3, which includes
grants and cooperative agreements but does not include contracts,
subcontracts or CRADAs. This definition is consistent with the usual
connotations of the term.
The Department invited comment on the definition of ``company'' in
order to assess whether it was appropriate to exclude all non-profit
organizations
[[Page 65512]]
from that definition, or whether it would be more appropriate to
exclude a narrower class of non-profit educational and charitable
organizations. One commenter expressed the view that excluding all non-
profit organizations from the definition of that term would invite
efforts to circumvent the purpose of section 2306.
The Department has concluded that the definition of ``company''
should not exclude all not-for-profit organizations, but should instead
exclude educational or charitable organizations.
Accordingly, Sec. 600.501 defines ``company'' as ``any business
entity other than an organization of the type described in section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C.
Sec. 501(c)(3)).'' This definition is intended to include corporations,
general or limited partnerships, sole proprietorships, joint ventures,
and other forms of business entities. It is not intended to include
governmental entities. Not-for-profit corporations and associations are
included unless they are educational or other institutions qualified
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
One commenter noted that the term ``affiliates'' is not defined in
the proposed rule and suggested that a definition be added. Section
600.503, in which the term is used, simply provides that investment and
employment in the U.S. by affiliates may be considered in assessing
whether the applicant's participation is in the economic interests of
the U.S. Accordingly, the Department does not believe that a technical
definition of ``affiliates'' is necessary.
Another commenter suggested a change to the definition of ``parent
company'' to clarify that, in the case of indirect control, each
company in a series must have a majority control of its subsidiary.
Such a rigid approach could permit use of organizational structures
designed to circumvent effective review under section 2306. Therefore,
the definition has not been modified.
C. Economic Interest Determination
Several comments were received concerning the scope of Departmental
discretion in determining whether a company's participation is in the
economic interest of the United States. One commenter, asserting that
DOE has substantial discretion in this area, suggested that this
determination should include a comparison of the records of applicant
companies in particular areas, for example, in the area of providing
U.S. jobs. A second commenter asserted that economic interest
assessments must not be based simply on static comparisons among
applicants. This same commenter emphasized that the Department should
be flexible in the factors it considers in every case and should
consider all available evidence in making its economic interest
determination. A third commenter agreed, taking the position that the
Department's economic interest determination should not be too narrowly
focused. As an example, the third commenter noted that in certain cases
there could be a clear economic benefit to the United States even
though some prospective awardees have no presence in the United States
and could not be expected to have any in the future.
Determinations concerning the economic interest of the United
States will be based on consideration of all available evidence. The
statement of policy provides that any evidence that shows that an award
would be in the economic interest of the United States can be
considered. The Department also agrees with the position that economic
interest assessments should not be based on comparisons among
applicants.
Several commenters cautioned that, in applying the economic
interest criteria, DOE should not impose performance requirements or
other similar conditions on applicants, directly or indirectly. Some of
these comments refer to U.S. Government obligations under the World
Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures,
which prohibit import substitution requirements and local purchasing
requirements, respectively. The policy statement does not impose
performance requirements or other similar conditions on applicants.
D. Section 2306(2)(B) Determination
One commenter recommended that the sole basis for DOE's finding
should be the outcome of proceedings conducted by the Office of the
United States Trade Representative under section 301 of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended. This commenter notes that the Congress and the
Executive Branch have established a comprehensive system of
identifying, evaluating and eliminating foreign trade barriers under
section 301. This commenter argues that such an approach would ensure
that all concerned parties have an opportunity to express views; would
ensure predictable results; and would ensure that DOE's finding
supports U.S. market-opening efforts. Another commenter argued that DOE
should consider evidence of compliance or non-compliance with laws and
international agreements affecting trade, and should not limit its
analysis to the outcome of section 301 proceedings. DOE agrees that
section 301 proceedings are an important factor in making the necessary
finding, but consideration of relevant evidence that is not produced as
a result of a section 301 proceeding also is appropriate.
One commenter urged DOE to consider whether U.S.-owned firms have
non-discriminatory market access in making its determinations. The
criteria contained in section 2306(2)(B) of EPACT address comparable
access to research opportunities, comparable investment opportunities
and adequate and effective intellectual property protections. Section
2306(2)(B) does not provide for DOE to consider whether U.S.-owned
firms have access to comparable trade opportunities in the relevant
foreign country.
E. Comparable Access to Research Opportunities
One commenter stated that it would defy common sense to find that a
parent company incorporated in a country with no similar research
program satisfies the requirements of section 2306. At the public
hearing, the same commenter stated that section 2306 of EPACT requires
DOE to disqualify any applicant if the applicant is headquartered in a
country that has no comparable research program.
Section 2306(2)(B) directs DOE to consider whether a foreign
country affords U.S. companies ``opportunities, comparable to those
afforded to any other company, to participate in any joint venture
similar to those authorized under this Act.'' 42 U.S.C. 13525(2)(B).
This finding relates to whether there is discrimination against U.S.-
owned firms relative to other firms with regard to access to any
foreign-government-sponsored programs comparable to those covered under
EPACT. The law does not provide for a finding that a foreign country
has comparable energy research and development programs.
F. Comparable Access to Investment Opportunities
One commenter stated that DOE should not limit its review to
whether U.S.-owned firms have a legal right to foreign investment
opportunities under international agreements. The commenter stated that
DOE should not find an affected applicant eligible to participate in a
DOE covered program unless U.S. firms have actual investment
opportunities in the country of the applicant's parent company that are
comparable to the opportunities
[[Page 65513]]
available to foreign investors in the United States. Another commenter
stated that DOE's main source of information on investment barriers
should be the National Trade Estimates Report on Foreign Trade Barriers
published annually by the Office of the United States Trade
Representative.
Section 2306(2)(B) provides that DOE must determine whether the
country ``affords to United States-owned companies local investment
opportunities comparable to those afforded to any other company.'' 42
U.S.C. 13525(2)(B). DOE will consider available information on the
legal regimes and de facto practices governing foreign investment in
relevant countries. The statement of policy states that DOE may
consider obligations of the country involved and local investment
opportunities afforded to U.S.-owned companies in that country. DOE
will consult with other Federal government agencies, as appropriate.
G. Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
One commenter stated that DOE should use the annual National Trade
Estimate Reports on Foreign Trade Barriers published by the Office of
the U.S. Trade Representative as a main source of information
concerning foreign government practices related to the protection of
the intellectual property rights of U.S.-owned companies. The commenter
recommended that DOE use the reports to allow foreign-owned companies
to know whether or not they are likely to be eligible to participate in
such programs prior to submitting an application. Two commenters
recommended that DOE work with other federal agencies to ensure that
DOE's policy is implemented in a manner that is predictable and
consistent with U.S. Government trade policies, including intellectual
property rights protection. Section 600.505 allows DOE to consider any
information related to the protection of intellectual property rights
of U.S.-owned companies and to seek and consider advice from other
federal agencies concerning such information, as appropriate. To
promote consistency, DOE has considered information on intellectual
property rights protection developed by other federal agencies and has
consulted with appropriate federal agencies in applying the section
2306(2)(B) standards. DOE intends to continue this practice.
H. Administrative Issues
DOE received several comments concerning the ``burden'' of
requirements established in the proposed rulemaking imposed on
applicants. One commenter expressed the view that DOE should avoid the
imposition of requirements which divert scarce research and development
resources to purposes of administration. This commenter also took issue
with the proposed certification procedures including those set forth at
Sec. 600.504(d) calling for a certification of status as a ``United
States-owned company.'' The commenter viewed these requirements as
overly legalistic and creating an unnecessary administrative burden and
expense. The Department agrees that the administrative burden on
applicants in complying with the requirements of section 2306 should be
minimized wherever possible. The Department has modified Sec. 600.504
(b) and (c) to provide for representations as opposed to certifications
concerning ownership status and other factors. This approach will allow
the applicant to demonstrate eligibility while minimizing any
administrative burden or added expense.
Another commenter, also urging that the administrative burden of
complying with section 2306 should be minimized, argued that there is
no reason to impose section 2306 requirements on firms meeting the
definition of ``small business'' under the regulations of the Small
Business Administration (SBA) because such firms, to be approved as a
small business by SBA, must already meet most of the requirements of
section 2306. The Department does not agree that qualifying for small
business status is equivalent to satisfying the eligibility criteria of
section 2306. Compare 13 CFR Sec. 121.403 with 42 U.S.C. 13525.
However, DOE sought comment on how it should make the required section
2306 determination in the context of relatively small financial
assistance awards. DOE suggested that one possible alternative would be
to ask applicants for awards below $100,000 to certify that they
satisfy all the eligibility requirements of section 2306 (1) and
(2)(A). The Department, in implementing this policy statement, expects
to establish such self-certification procedures to minimize the compli-
ance burden for awards of less than $100,000. Guidance on the
procedures for establishing eligibility is available from the DOE
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management (202-586-8613).
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today's regulatory action has been determined to be a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today's
action was reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Today's action and any other documents submitted to OIRA for
review have been made a part of the rulemaking record and are available
for public review as provided in the Supplementary Information section
of this rule.
B. Review Under Paperwork Reduction Act
No new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., are imposed by today's
regulatory action.
C. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40
CFR parts 1500-1508), the Department of Energy has established
regulations for its compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Pursuant to appendix A of subpart
D of 10 CFR part 1021, the Department has determined that today's
regulatory action is categorically exempt as a procedural rule for
implementation of statutory requirements.
D. Review Under Executive Order 12612
Executive Order 12612, 52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987), requires
that rules be reviewed for any substantial direct effect on States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or in
the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of
government. If there are sufficient substantial direct effects, then
the Executive Order requires preparation of a federalism assessment to
be used in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing a
policy action. Today's action interprets the section 2306 eligibility
requirements to be inapplicable to State applications for financial
assistance. Therefore, the Department has determined that they will not
have a substantial direct effect on the institutional interests or
traditional functions of States.
E. Review Under Executive Order 12778
Section 2 of Executive Order 12778 instructs each agency to adhere
to certain requirements in promulgating new regulations. These
requirements, set forth in section 2 (a) and (b)(2), include
eliminating drafting errors and needless ambiguity, drafting the
regulations to minimize litigation, providing clear and certain legal
[[Page 65514]]
standards for affected legal conduct, and promoting simplification and
burden reduction. Agencies are also instructed to make every reasonable
effort to ensure that regulations define key terms and are clear on
such matters as exhaustion of administrative remedies and preemption.
The Department certifies that today's regulatory action meets the
requirements of section 2 (a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 13th day of December 1995.
Dan W. Reicher,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 600 of title 10,
Subchapter H of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below:
PART 600--FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE RULES
1. The authority citation for part 600 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7254, 7256, 13525; 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308,
unless otherwise noted.
2. New subpart F, consisting of Secs. 600.500 through 600.505, is
added to read as follows:
Subpart F--Eligibility Determination for Certain Financial Assistance
Programs--General Statement of Policy
Sec.
600.500 Purpose and scope.
600.501 Definitions.
600.502 What must DOE determine.
600.503 Determining the economic interest of the United States.
600.504 Information an applicant must submit.
600.505 Other information DOE may consider.
Subpart F--Eligibility Determination for Certain Financial
Assistance Programs--General Statement of Policy
Sec. 600.500 Purpose and scope.
This subpart implements section 2306 of the Energy Policy Act of
1992, 42 U.S.C. 13525, and sets forth a general statement of policy,
including procedures and interpretations, for the guidance of
implementing DOE officials in making mandatory pre-award determinations
of eligibility for financial assistance under Titles XX through XXIII
of that Act.
Sec. 600.501 Definitions.
The definitions in Sec. 600.3 of this part, including the
definition of the term ``financial assistance,'' are applicable to this
subpart. In addition, as used in this subpart:
Act means the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Company means any business entity other than an organization of the
type described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 (26 U.S.C. Sec. 501 (c)(3)).
Covered program means a program under Titles XX through XXIII of
the Act. (A list of covered programs, updated periodically as
appropriate, is maintained and published by the Department of Energy.)
Parent company means a company that:
(1) Exercises ultimate ownership of the applicant company either
directly, by ownership of a majority of that company's voting
securities, or indirectly, by control over a majority of that company's
voting securities through one or more intermediate subsidiary companies
or otherwise, and
(2) Is not itself subject to the ultimate ownership control of
another company.
United States means the several States, the District of Columbia,
and all commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United
States.
United States-owned company means:
(1) A company that has majority ownership by individuals who are
citizens of the United States, or
(2) A company organized under the laws of a State that either has
no parent company or has a parent company organized under the laws of a
State.
Voting security has the meaning given the term in the Public
Utility Holding Company Act (15 U.S.C. 15b(17)).
Sec. 600.502 What must DOE determine.
A company shall be eligible to receive an award of financial
assistance under a covered program only if DOE finds that--
(a) Consistent with Sec. 600.503, the company's participation in a
covered program would be in the economic interest of the United States;
and
(b) The company is either--
(1) A United States-owned company; or
(2) Incorporated or organized under the laws of any State and has a
parent company which is incorporated or organized under the laws of a
country which--
(i) Affords to the United States-owned companies opportunities,
comparable to those afforded to any other company, to participate in
any joint venture similar to those authorized under the Act;
(ii) Affords to United States-owned companies local investment
opportunities comparable to those afforded to any other company; and
(iii) Affords adequate and effective protection for the
intellectual property rights of United States-owned companies.
Sec. 600.503 Determining the economic interest of the United States.
In determining whether participation of an applicant company in a
covered program would be in the economic interest of the United States
under Sec. 600.502(a), DOE may consider any evidence showing that a
financial assistance award would be in the economic interest of the
United States including, but not limited to--
(a) Investments by the applicant company and its affiliates in the
United States in research, development, and manufacturing (including,
for example, the manufacture of major components or subassemblies in
the United States);
(b) Significant contributions to employment in the United States by
the applicant company and its affiliates; and
(c) An agreement by the applicant company, with respect to any
technology arising from the financial assistance being sought--
(1) To promote the manufacture within the United States of products
resulting from that technology (taking into account the goals of
promoting the competitiveness of United States industry); and
(2) To procure parts and materials from competitive suppliers.
Sec. 600.504 Information an applicant must submit.
(a) Any applicant for financial assistance under a covered program
shall submit with the application for financial assistance, or at such
later time as may be specified by DOE, evidence for DOE to consider in
making findings required under Sec. 600.502(a) and findings concerning
ownership status under Sec. 600.502(b).
(b) If an applicant for financial assistance is submitting evidence
relating to future undertakings, such as an agreement under
Sec. 600.503(c) to promote manufacture in the United States of products
resulting from a technology developed with financial assistance or to
procure parts and materials from competitive suppliers, the applicant
shall submit a representation affirming acceptance of these
undertakings. The applicant should also briefly describe its plans, if
any, for any manufacturing of products arising from the program-
supported research and development, including the location where such
manufacturing is expected to occur.
(c) If an applicant for financial assistance is claiming to be a
United States-owned company, the applicant
[[Page 65515]]
must submit a representation affirming that it falls within the
definition of that term provided in Sec. 600.501.
(d) DOE may require submission of additional information deemed
necessary to make any portion of the determination required by
Sec. 600.502.
Sec. 600.505 Other information DOE may consider.
In making the determination under Sec. 600.502(b)(2), DOE may--
(a) consider information on the relevant international and domestic
law obligations of the country of incorporation of the parent company
of an applicant;
(b) consider information relating to the policies and practices of
the country of incorporation of the parent company of an applicant with
respect to:
(1) The eligibility criteria for, and the experience of United
States-owned company participation in, energy-related research and
development programs;
(2) Local investment opportunities afforded to United States-owned
companies; and
(3) Protection of intellectual property rights of United States-
owned companies;
(c) seek and consider advice from other federal agencies, as
appropriate; and
(d) consider any publicly available information in addition to the
information provided by the applicant.
[FR Doc. 95-30752 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30736 Buy America Requirements; Removal
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30736]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 660
RIN 2132-AA54
Buy America Requirements; Removal
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule removes the Buy America requirements which are now
obsolete and have been superseded by 49 CFR part 661.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Daguillard, Deputy Assistant
Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, room 9316, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 366-1936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 401 of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978 (the 1978 STAA) (Public Law No. 95-599) included
a Buy America provision applicable for the first time to the Federal
Transit Administration ( FTA) program. This provision established a
preference for products produced, mined or manufactured in the United
States. The implementing regulation, 49 CFR part 660, applied these
requirements to contracts exceeding $500,000 financed by funds
obligated under the 1978 STAA.
Both the statutory and funding authority of the 1978 STAA have now
lapsed. FTA's current Buy America requirements are set out at 49 U.S.C.
5323(j) and the implementing regulation, 49 CFR part 661. Because 49
CFR part 660 is now obsolete, FTA finds that it is unnecessary to seek
public comment on its removal from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Part 660 is being removed as part of the President's ``Reinventing
Government'' initiative.
Accordingly, and effective December 20, 1995, FTA is removing 49
CFR Part 660.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
This is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866 or under
the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It does not impose
costs on regulated parties. It merely removes an obsolete regulation.
There are not sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The Department certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 660
Grant programs--transportation, Mass transportation.
PART 660--[REMOVED]
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, part 660 is hereby
removed.
Gordon J. Linton,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-30736 Filed 12-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30721 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; Amendment
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65569-65570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30721]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
32 CFR Part 706
Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; Amendment
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and
exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy
Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty) of the Navy has determined
that USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its
special construction and purpose,
[[Page 65570]]
cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without
interfering with its special functions as a naval ship. The intended
effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS
apply.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Captain R. R. Pixa, JAGC, U.S. Navy
Admiralty Counsel, Office of the Judge Advocate General Navy
Department, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-2400. Telephone
number: (703) 325-9744.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authority granted in 33
U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR Part 706. This
amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate
General (Admiralty) of the Navy, under authority delegated by the
Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) is a
vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose,
cannot fully comply with the following specific provision of 72 COLREGS
without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I,
paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the horizontal distance between the
forward and after masthead lights. The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate
General (Admiralty) has also certified that the lights involved are
located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS
requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR Parts
296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment
prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public
interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of
lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed
herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its
military functions.
List of subjects in 32 CFR Part 706
Marine Safety, Navigation (Water), and Vessels.
PART 706--[AMENDED]
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 706 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR Part 706 continues to read:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605.
2. Table Five of 706.2 is amended by adding the following vessel:
Sec. 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive
Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605.
* * * * *
Table Five
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After mast-head light
Masthead lights not Forward masthead light less than \1/2\ ship's Percentage
Vessel No. over all other lights not in forward quarter length aft of forward horizontal
and obstructions. annex of ship. annex I, sec. masthead light. annex sepaation
I, sec. 2(f) 3(a) I, sec. 3(a) attained.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
USS Oak Hill........................ LSD 51 ....................... ...................... X 63.9
* * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: November 30, 1995.
R. R. Pixa,
Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General
(Admiralty).
[FR Doc. 95-30721 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30720 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; Amendment
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30720]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
32 CFR Part 706
Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; Amendment
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and
exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy
Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty) of the Navy has determined
that USS BLACK HAWK (MHC 58) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its
special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain
provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special
functions as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn
mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Captain R. R. Pixa, JAGC, U.S. Navy
Admiralty Counsel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Navy
Department, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, Virginia, 22332-2400,
Telephone Number: (703) 325-9744.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authority granted in 33
U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR Part 706. This
amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate
General (Admiralty) of the Navy, under authority delegated by the
Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS BLACK HAWK (MHC 58) is a
vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose,
cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72
COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship:
Rule 27(f), pertaining to the display of all-round lights by a vessel
engaged in mine clearance operations; and Annex I, paragraph 9(b),
prescribing that all-round lights be located as not to be obscured by
masts, topmasts or structures within angular sectors of more than six
degrees. The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty) of the
Navy has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest
possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR Parts
296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment
prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public
interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of
lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed
herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its
military functions.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706
Marine Safety, Navigation (Water), and Vessels.
PART 706--[AMENDED]
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 706 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 706 continues to read:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605.
2. Section 706.2 is amended by adding the following ship to
Table Four, paragraph 18:
Sec. 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive
Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obscured angles relative to ship's heading
Vessel Number ---------------------------------------------------------------
Port STBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Black hawk...................... MHC 58 65.0 deg. to 75.6 deg......... 284.1 deg. to 294.6 deg..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: November 30, 1995.
R.R. Pixa,
Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General
(Admiralty).
[FR Doc. 95-30720 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30684 Nonbank Trustee Net Worth Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65547-65550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30684]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 8635]
RIN 1545-AS92
Nonbank Trustee Net Worth Requirements
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final and temporary regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains regulations that provide guidance to
nonbank trustees with respect to the adequacy of net worth requirements
that must be satisfied in order to be or
[[Page 65548]]
remain an approved nonbank trustee. These regulations affect nonbank
trustees and custodians of individual retirement accounts, and nonbank
custodians of qualified plans and tax-sheltered annuities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations are effective December 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie Hoffman, (202) 622-6030 (not
a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 6, 1994, temporary regulations (TD 8570) under section
401 were published in the Federal Register (59 FR 62570). A notice of
proposed rulemaking (EE-38-94), cross-referencing the temporary
regulations, was published in the Federal Register (59 FR 62644) on the
same day. The temporary regulations provide guidance on the adequacy of
net worth requirements for nonbank trustees and custodians of
individual retirement plans, and for nonbank custodians of custodial
accounts of qualified plans and tax-sheltered annuities.
After consideration of all of the comments, the temporary
regulations are replaced and the proposed regulations are adopted as
revised by this Treasury decision. Because section 401(d)(1), under
which Sec. 1.401-12 was originally issued, was repealed by section
237(a) of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Public
Law 97-248 (1982), these final regulations also move all the rules for
nonbank trustees and custodians that were previously in Sec. 1.401-
12(n) to Sec. 1.408-2.
Explanation of Provisions
The fiduciary conduct rules for nonbank trustees and custodians
under longstanding Treasury regulations require nonbank trustees and
custodians to maintain a minimum amount of net worth in order to
qualify as an approved nonbank trustee or custodian. Under this
requirement, the nonbank trustee or custodian's net worth must exceed
the greater of a specified dollar amount or a percentage of the value
of all assets held in fiduciary accounts of retirement plans. A primary
objective of this adequacy-of-net-worth requirement has been to ensure
that nonbank trustees and custodians maintain a level of solvency
commensurate with their financial and fiduciary responsibilities.
Under the general net worth requirement, nonbank trustees and
custodians may not accept new accounts unless their net worth exceeds
the greater of $100,000 or four percent of the value of all assets held
in fiduciary accounts. Additionally, nonbank trustees and custodians
must take whatever steps are necessary (including the relinquishment of
fiduciary accounts) to ensure that their net worth exceeds the greater
of $50,000 or two percent of the value of all assets held by them in
fiduciary accounts.
For passive nonbank trustees and custodians (qualified nonbank
entities that have no discretion to direct the investment of assets),
the percentage requirements are lower. Specifically, passive nonbank
trustees and custodians may not accept new accounts unless their net
worth exceeds the greater of $100,000 or two percent of the value of
all assets held in fiduciary accounts. Additionally, they must take
appropriate action (including the relinquishment of fiduciary accounts)
to ensure that their net worth exceeds the greater of $50,000 or one
percent of the value of assets held in their fiduciary accounts.
The proposed and temporary regulations provide a special rule for
passive nonbank trustees and custodians that are broker-dealers and
members of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). The
proposed and temporary regulations provide that, to the extent that
assets held in any fiduciary accounts are insured by SIPC in the event
of the member's liquidation ($500,000 per account, $100,000 of which
may be cash), the assets will be disregarded in determining the value
of assets held in fiduciary accounts by the trustee or custodian for
purposes of the percentage part of the net worth requirement.
The final regulations adopt the provisions of the proposed and
temporary regulations. In addition, in response to comments, the final
regulations extend the SIPC-related relief to all nonbank trustees and
custodians that are broker-dealers and members of SIPC rather than
limiting the relief to passive nonbank trustees and custodians. The
final regulations provide that the amount of the minimum net worth
requirement for nonbank trustees and custodians that are SIPC members
is reduced by either two percent of assets insured by SIPC (in the case
of the minimum net worth requirement that applies to a trustee or
custodian accepting additional accounts) or one percent of assets
insured by SIPC (in the case of the minimum net worth requirement that
must be satisfied to avoid a mandatory relinquishment of accounts). An
example in the regulations illustrates this rule.
The final regulations also retain the rule in the proposed and
temporary regulations that increased the initial net worth requirement
for all nonbank trustees and custodians. The purpose of the rule is to
better assure that the enterprises are sound and well-funded during
their start-up period. This initial net worth requirement requires all
new entities applying for nonbank trustee or custodian status to have a
net worth of not less than $250,000 for the most recent taxable year
preceding the applicant's initial application.
This new initial net worth requirement applies only to applications
received after January 5, 1995. Previously approved nonbank trustees
and custodians need only satisfy the ongoing net worth requirement.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that
section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5)
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to
these regulations, and, therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code,
the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was
submitted to the Small Business Administration for comment on its
impact on small business.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these regulations is Marjorie Hoffman,
Office of the Associate Chief Counsel, (Employee Benefits and Exempt
Organizations) IRS. However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury
Department participated in their development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding
an entry in numerical order to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
Sec. 1.401-12 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 401(d)(1). * * *
[[Page 65549]]
Secs. 1.401-12 and 1.408-2 [Amended]
Par. 2. Paragraph (n) of Sec. 1.401-12 is redesignated as paragraph
(e) of Sec. 1.408-2 and the authority citation immediately following
Sec. 1.401-12 is removed.
Sec. 1.401-12T [Removed]
Par. 3. Section 1.401-12T is removed.
Sec. 1.401(f)-1 [Amended]
Par. 4. Section 1.401(f)-1 is amended by:
1. Removing the language ``section 401(d)(1) and the regulations
thereunder'' and adding ``Sec. 1.408-2(e)'' in its place in the last
sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
2. Removing the language ``401(d)(1) and adding ``408(n)'' in its
place in paragraph (d)(1).
Par. 5. Section 1.408-2 is amended by:
1. Removing the language ``401(d)(1)'' and adding ``408(n)'' in its
place in paragraph (b)(2)(i).
2. Removing the language ``(b)(2)(ii)'' and adding ``(e)'' in its
place in paragraph (b)(2)(i).
3. Removing paragraph (b)(2)(ii).
4. Redesignating (b)(2)(iii) as (b)(2)(ii).
5. Removing newly designated paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(9).
6. Further redesignating paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(8) as
paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(7), respectively.
7. Removing the language ``For the plan years to which this
paragraph applies, the'' and adding ``The'' in its place, and removing
the language ``(c)(1)(i)'' and adding ``(b)'' in its place, in the
first sentence of newly designated paragraph (e)(1).
8. Removing the language ``401'' and adding ``408'' in its place,
and removing the language ``(n)(3) to (n)(7)'' and adding ``(e)(2) to
(e)(6)'' in its place, in the second sentence of newly designated
paragraph (e)(1).
9. Removing the language ``Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
Attention: E:EP, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C. 20224'' and
adding ``the address prescribed by the Commissioner in revenue rulings,
notices, and other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin
(see Sec. 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter)'' in its place in the
third sentence of newly designated paragraph (e)(1), in the last
sentence of newly designated (e)(6)(9)(iv), and in the first sentence
of newly designated (e)(6)(v)(B).
10. Removing the language ``(n)(8)'' and adding ``(e)(7)'' in its
place in the last sentence of newly designated paragraph (e)(1).
11. Removing the language ``(n)(6)'' and adding ``(e)(5)'' in its
place in newly designated paragraph (e)(2)(iv).
12. Redesignating newly designated paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(A) as
paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(E).
13. Removing the language ``(n)(7)(i)(A)'' and adding
``(e)(6)(i)(A)'' in its place in newly designated paragraph
(e)(5)(ii)(B)(2) and in newly designated paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(C)(2).
14. Removing the language ``(n)(6)(iii)(A)'' and adding
``(e)(5)(iii)(A)'' in its place in newly designated paragraph
(e)(5)(iii)(B).
15. Removing the language ``(n)(6)(vi)'' and adding ``(e)(5)(vi)''
in its place in newly designated paragraph (e)(5)(v)(A).
16. Removing the language ``(n)(6)(viii)(C)'' and adding
``(e)(5)(viii)(C)'' in its place in newly designated paragraph
(e)(5)(vi).
17. Removing the language ``(n)(3)(v)'' and adding ``(e)(2)(v)'' in
its place, and removing the language ``(n)(8)'' and adding ``(e)(7)''
in its place, in newly designated paragraph (e)(5)(viii).
18. Removing the language ``(n)(6)(i)(A)(3)'' and adding
``(e)(5)(i)(A)(3)'' in its place, and removing the language
``(n)(5)(ii)(E)'' and adding ``(e)(4)(ii)(E)'' in its place, in the
third sentence of newly designated paragraph (e)(6)(i)(A).
19. Removing the language ``(n)(7)(iii)(A)(3)'' and adding
``(e)(6)(iii)(A)(3)'' in its place in newly designated paragraph
(e)(6)(iii)(C).
20. Revising newly designated paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(A) and adding
paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(D).
21. The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 1.408-2 Individual retirement accounts.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Adequacy of net worth--(A) Initial net worth requirement. In
the case of applications received after January 5, 1995, no initial
application will be accepted by the Commissioner unless the applicant
has a net worth of not less than $250,000 (determined as of the end of
the most recent taxable year). Thereafter, the applicant must satisfy
the adequacy of net worth requirements of paragraph (e)(6)(ii) (B) and
(C) of this section.
* * * * *
(D) Assets held by members of SIPC--(1) For purposes of satisfying
the adequacy-of-net-worth requirement of this paragraph, a special rule
is provided for nonbank trustees that are members of the Securities
Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) created under the Securities
Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA)(15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq., as
amended). The amount that the net worth of a nonbank trustee that is a
member of SIPC must exceed is reduced by two percent for purposes of
paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(B)(2), and one percent for purposes of paragraph
(e)(5)(ii)(C)(2), of the value of assets (determined on an account-by-
account basis) held for the benefit of customers (as defined in 15
U.S.C. 78fff-2(e)(4)) in fiduciary accounts by the nonbank trustee to
the extent of the portion of each account that does not exceed the
dollar limit on advances described in 15 U.S.C. 78fff-3(a), as amended,
that would apply to the assets in that account in the event of a
liquidation proceeding under the SIPA.
(2) The provisions of this special rule for assets held in
fiduciary accounts by members of SIPC are illustrated in the following
example.
Example--(a) Trustee X is a broker-dealer and is a member of the
Securities Investment Protection Corporation. Trustee X also has
been approved as a nonbank trustee for individual retirement
accounts (IRAs) by the Commissioner but not as a passive nonbank
trustee. Trustee X is the trustee for four IRAs. The total assets of
each IRA (for which Trustee X is the trustee) as of the most recent
valuation date before the last day of Trustee X's taxable year
ending in 1995 are as follows: the total assets for IRA-1 is
$3,000,000 (all of which is invested in securities); the value of
the total assets for IRA-2 is $500,000 ($200,000 of which is cash
and $300,000 of which is invested in securities), the value of the
total assets for IRA-3 is $400,000 (all of which is invested in
securities); and the value of the total assets of IRA-4 is $200,000
(all of which is cash). The value of all assets held in fiduciary
accounts, as defined in Sec. 1.408-2(e)(6)(viii)(A), is $4,100,000.
(b) The dollar limit on advances described in 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 78fff-3(a) that would apply to the assets in each account in
the event of a liquidation proceeding under the Securities Investor
Protection Act of 1970 in effect as of the last day of Trustee X's
taxable year ending in 1995 is $500,000 per account (no more than
$100,000 of which is permitted to be cash). Thus, the dollar limit
that would apply to IRA-1 is $500,000; the dollar limit for IRA-2 is
$400,000 ($100,000 of the cash and the $300,000 of the value of the
securities); the dollar limit for IRA-3 is $400,000 (the full value
of the account because the value of the account is less than
$500,000 and no portion of the account is cash); and the dollar
limit for IRA-4 is $100,000 (the entire account is cash and the
dollar limit per account for cash is $100,000). The aggregate dollar
limits of the four IRAs is $1,400,000.
(c) For 1996, the amount determined under Sec. 1.408-
2(e)(6)(ii)(B) is determined as follows for Trustee X: (1) four
percent of $4,100,000 equals $164,000; (2) two percent of $1,400,000
equals $28,000; and (3) $164,000 minus $28,000 equals $136,000.
Thus,
[[Page 65550]]
because $136,000 exceeds $100,000, the minimum net worth necessary for
Trustee X to accept new accounts for 1996 is $136,000.
(d) For 1996, the amount determined under Sec. 1.408-
2(e)(6)(ii)(C) for Trustee X is determined as follows: (1) two
percent of $4,100,000 equals $82,000; (2) one percent of $1,400,000
equals $14,000; and (3) $82,000 minus $14,000 equals $68,000. Thus,
because $68,000 exceeds $50,000, the minimum net worth necessary for
Trustee X to avoid a mandatory relinquishment of accounts for 1996
is $68,000.
* * * * *
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: December 12, 1995.
Leslie Samuels,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 95-30684 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30664 Capital; Capital Adequacy Guidelines
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66042-66045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30664]
[[Page 66041]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of the Treasury
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 3
Federal Reserve System
12 CFR Parts 208 and 225
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
12 CFR Part 325
_______________________________________________________________________
Capital; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; Joint Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 66042]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 3
[Docket No. 95-28]
RIN 1557-AB14
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Parts 208 and 225
[Regulations H and Y; Docket No. R-0849]
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 325
RIN 3064-AB54
Capital; Capital Adequacy Guidelines
AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury;
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Joint final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The OCC, Board, and the FDIC (Agencies) are amending their
respective risk-based capital guidelines to modify the definition of
the OECD-based group of countries. The amendment excludes from the
OECD-based group of countries any country that has rescheduled its
external sovereign debt within the previous five years. The amendment
also clarifies that the OECD-based group of countries includes all
countries that are members of the OECD, regardless of their date of
entry into the OECD. The effect of the amendment would be to increase
the amount of capital that banks are required to hold against claims on
the governments and banks of an OECD country, in the event that the
country were to reschedule its external sovereign debt. This action is
being taken to conform with a change in the Basle Accord on risk-based
capital that was adopted by the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision
(Basle Committee) on April 15, 1995.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OCC: Geoffrey White, Senior
International Economic Advisor, International Banking and Finance
Department, (202) 874-5235; Saumya Bhavsar, Attorney, Legislative and
Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 874-5090; Ronald Shimabukuro,
Senior Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202)
874-5090; or Roger Tufts, Senior Economic Advisor, Office of the Chief
National Bank Examiner, (202) 874-5070; Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Board: Roger Cole, Deputy Associate Director, (202) 452-2618; Norah
Barger, Manager, (202) 452-2402; Robert Motyka, Supervisory Financial
Analyst, (202) 452-3621; Division of Banking Supervision and
Regulation; or Greg Baer, Managing Senior Counsel, Legal Division,
(202) 452-3236; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. For the
hearing impaired only, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf, Dorothea
Thompson, (202) 452-3544.
FDIC: For supervisory purposes, Stephen G. Pfeifer, Examination
Specialist, Accounting Section, Division of Supervision, (202) 898-
8904; for legal purposes, Dirck A. Hargraves, Attorney, Legal Division,
(202) 898-7049; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In 1988, the central bank governors of the Group of Ten (G-10)
countries endorsed a framework for international risk-based capital
guidelines entitled ``International Convergence of Capital Measurement
and Capital Standards'' (commonly referred to as the Basle
Accord).1 Under the framework, risk-weighted assets are calculated
by assigning assets and off-balance-sheet items to broad categories
based primarily on their credit risk: that is, the risk that a banking
organization will incur a loss due to an obligor or counterparty
default on a transaction. Risk weights range from zero percent, for
assets with minimal credit risk (such as U.S. Treasury securities), to
100 percent, which is the risk weight that applies to most private
sector claims, including commercial loans. In 1989, the Agencies
adopted risk-based capital guidelines implementing the Basle Accord for
the banking organizations they supervise.
\1\ The Basle Accord was proposed by the Basle Committee, which
comprises representatives of the central banks and supervisory
authorities from the G-10 countries (Belgium, Canada, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the
United Kingdom, and the United States) and Luxembourg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Basle Accord focuses primarily on credit risk, it also
incorporates country transfer risk considerations. Transfer risk
generally refers to the possibility that an asset cannot be serviced in
the currency of payment because of a lack of, or restraints on, the
availability of needed foreign exchange in the country of the obligor.
In addressing transfer risk, the Basle Committee members examined
several methods for assigning obligations of foreign countries to the
various risk categories. Ultimately, the Basle Committee decided to use
a defined group of countries considered to be of high credit standing
as the basis for differentiating claims on foreign governments and
banks. For this purpose, the Basle Committee determined this group to
be the full members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), as well as countries that have concluded special
lending arrangements with the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
associated with the IMF's General Arrangements to Borrow.2 These
countries, referred to in the Agencies' risk-based capital guidelines
as the OECD-based group of countries, encompass most of the world's
major industrial countries, including all members of the G-10 and the
European Union.
\2\ The OECD is an international organization of countries which
are committed to market-oriented economic policies, including the
promotion of private enterprise and free market prices; liberal
trade policies; and the absence of exchange controls. Full members
of the OECD at the time the Basle Accord was endorsed included
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In
May 1994, Mexico was accepted as a full member of the OECD. In
addition, Saudi Arabia has concluded special lending arrangements
associated with the IMF's General Arrangements to Borrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under both the Basle Accord and the Agencies' risk-based capital
guidelines, claims on the governments and banks of the OECD-based group
of countries generally receive lower risk weights than corresponding
claims on the governments and banks of non-OECD countries.
Specifically, the Agencies' guidelines provide for the following
treatment:
Direct claims on, and the portions of claims that are
directly and unconditionally guaranteed by, OECD-based central
governments (including central banks) are assigned to the zero percent
risk weight category. Corresponding claims on the central government of
a country outside the OECD-based group are assigned to the zero percent
risk weight category only to the extent that the claims are denominated
in the local currency and the bank has local currency liabilities in
that country.
Claims conditionally guaranteed by OECD-based central
governments and
[[Page 66043]]
claims collateralized by securities issued or guaranteed by OECD-based
central governments generally are assigned to the 20 percent risk
weight category. The same types of claims on non-OECD countries are
assigned to the 100 percent risk category.
Long-term claims on non-OECD banks are assigned to the 100
percent risk category, rather than to the 20 percent risk category
accorded to long-term claims on OECD banks. (Short-term claims on all
banks are assigned to the 20 percent risk weight category.)
General obligation bonds that are obligations of states or
other political subdivisions of the OECD-based group of countries are
assigned to the 20 percent risk category. Revenue bonds of such
political subdivisions are assigned to the 50 percent risk category.
General obligation and revenue bonds of political subdivisions of non-
OECD countries are assigned to the 100 percent risk category.
Recently, the OECD has taken steps to expand its membership. In
light of these steps, the Basle Committee was urged to clarify an
ambiguity in the Basle Accord as to whether the OECD members qualifying
for the lower risk weights include only those members that were members
of the OECD when the Basle Accord was endorsed in 1988, or all members,
regardless of their date of entry into the OECD. The Basle Committee
also reviewed the overall appropriateness of the criteria the Basle
Accord uses to determine whether claims on a foreign government or bank
qualify for placement in a lower risk category. As part of this review,
the Basle Committee reassessed whether membership in the OECD (or the
conclusion of special lending arrangements with the IMF) would, by
itself, be sufficient to ensure that only countries with relatively low
transfer risk would qualify for lower risk weight treatment.
On July 15, 1994, the Basle Committee clarified that the reference
in the Basle Accord to OECD members applies to all current members of
the organization. The Basle Committee also stated its intention,
subject to national consultation, to amend the definition of the OECD-
based group of countries in the Basle Accord in order to exclude from
lower risk weight treatment any country within the OECD-based group of
countries that had rescheduled its external sovereign debt within the
previous five years. The Basle Committee adopted this change in the
definition of the OECD-based group of countries on April 15, 1995.
On October 14, 1994, the Board and the OCC published a joint notice
of proposed rulemaking (59 FR 52100) to make corresponding changes in
the definition of the OECD-based group of countries in their risk-based
capital guidelines. The FDIC published a similar proposal on February
15, 1995 (60 FR 8582). Under the Agencies' proposals, the OECD-based
group of countries would continue to include countries that are full
members of the OECD, regardless of entry date, as well as countries
that have concluded special lending arrangements with the IMF
associated with the IMF's General Arrangements to Borrow, but would
exclude any country within this group that had rescheduled its external
sovereign debt within the previous five years. The purpose of the
proposed modification was to clarify that membership in the OECD-based
group of countries must coincide with relatively low transfer risk in
order for a country to qualify for the lower risk-weight treatment.
Under the proposals, reschedulings of external sovereign debt
generally would include renegotiations of terms arising from a
country's inability or unwillingness to meet its external debt service
obligations. The proposals further provided that renegotiations of debt
in the normal course of business generally would not indicate transfer
risk of the kind that would preclude an OECD-based country from
qualifying for lower risk weight treatment.
The Agencies invited comment on all aspects of the proposal.
II. Comments Received
The OCC and the Board together received two public comments on
their proposal. (The FDIC did not receive any comments.) One commenter
was a regional banking organization that generally supported the
proposal. The other was a clearinghouse that opposed the proposal.
The banking organization agreed that OECD membership alone is not
sufficient to ensure that only countries with relatively low transfer
risk qualify for lower risk weight treatment, and it supported the
additional criterion as providing a good indication of a higher level
of transfer risk. The banking organization suggested that the
definition should be further revised to exclude newly-formed countries,
whose willingness and ability to meet their debt obligations were
unproven, for a period of five years. The Agencies did not adopt this
suggestion, because the process of admitting countries to the OECD is
lengthy enough that the five-year waiting period recommended by the
commenter would have little practical effect.
The clearinghouse viewed the current criteria as adequate and
commented that adding another criterion would increase the complexity
of and confusion about the risk-based capital guidelines. Although the
Agencies agree with the commenter on the need to minimize the
complexity of the risk-based capital guidelines, the Agencies do not
believe that this rule will increase their complexity significantly,
particularly since reschedulings by OECD countries tend to be extremely
rare. Until a rescheduling occurs, the change in the definition will
not have any effect on the assignment of assets to risk-weight
categories, and thus will have little or no effect on banks.
III. Final Rule
After carefully considering the comments received and deliberating
further on the issues involved, the Agencies are adopting a final rule
that amends the definition of the OECD-based group of countries in
their risk-based capital guidelines substantially as proposed.
Under the final rule, the OECD-based group of countries continues
to include countries that are full members of the OECD, regardless of
entry date, as well as countries that have concluded special lending
arrangements with the IMF associated with the IMF's General
Arrangements to Borrow, but excludes any country within this group that
has rescheduled its external sovereign debt within the previous five
years.
For purposes of this final rule, an event of rescheduling of
external sovereign debt generally would include renegotiations of terms
arising from a country's inability or unwillingness to meet its
external debt service obligations. Renegotiations of debt in the normal
course of business generally do not indicate transfer risk of the kind
that would preclude an OECD-based country from qualifying for lower
risk weight treatment. One example of such a routine renegotiation
would be a renegotiation to allow the borrower to take advantage of a
change in market conditions, such as a decline in interest rates.
This distinction between renegotiations arising from a country's
inability or unwillingness to meet its external debt service
obligations and renegotiations that reflect a change in market
conditions was discussed in the preambles of the Agencies' notices of
proposed rulemaking but was not included in the regulatory text. In
order to clarify the meaning of the final rule, the Agencies are
including language to this effect in the text of the final rule.
[[Page 66044]]
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Agencies hereby certify that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business
entities (in this case, small banking organizations), in accord with
the spirit and purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). The impact on institutions regulated by the Agencies,
regardless of their size, will be minimal. In addition, because the
risk-based capital guidelines generally do not apply to bank holding
companies with consolidated assets of less than $150 million, this
proposal will not affect such companies. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act and Regulatory Burden
The Agencies have determined that this final rule will not increase
the regulatory paperwork burden of banking organizations pursuant to
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160) provides that
the Agencies must consider the administrative burdens and benefits of
any new regulations that impose additional requirements on insured
depository institutions. Section 302 also requires such a rule to take
effect on the first day of the calendar quarter following final
publication of the rule, unless the agency, for good cause, determines
an earlier effective date is appropriate. This final rule is effective
on April 1, 1996.
VI. OCC Statement on Executive Order 12866
The OCC has determined that this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action, as that term is defined by Executive Order 12866.
VII. OCC Statement on Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L.
104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before
promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a
budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a
rule. The OCC has determined that this final rule will not result in
expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, the OCC
has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed
the regulatory alternatives considered.
List of Subjects
12 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and procedure, Capital, National banks,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Risk.
12 CFR Part 208
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Confidential business
information, Crime, Currency, Federal Reserve System, Flood insurance,
Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
12 CFR Part 225
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal
Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.
12 CFR Part 325
Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Capital adequacy, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, State nonmember
banks.
Authority and Issuance
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
12 CFR CHAPTER I
For the reasons set out in the joint preamble, Appendix A to part 3
of title 12, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
set forth below.
PART 3--MINIMUM CAPITAL RATIOS; ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 93a, 161, 1818, 1828(n), 1831n note, 1835,
3907, and 3909.
2. In section 1 of appendix A to part 3, footnote 1 in paragraph
(c)(19) is redesignated as footnote 1a.
3. In section 1 of appendix A to part 3, paragraph (c)(16) is
revised to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 3--Risk-Based Capital Guidelines
Section 1. Purpose, Applicability of Guidelines, and Definitions.
* * * * * *
(c) * * *
(16) The OECD-based group of countries comprises all full
members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) regardless of entry date, as well as countries that have
concluded special lending arrangements with the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) associated with the IMF's General Arrangements
to Borrow,1 but excludes any country that has rescheduled its
external sovereign debt within the previous five years. These
countries are hereinafter referred to as OECD countries. A
rescheduling of external sovereign debt generally would include any
renegotiation of terms arising from a country's inability or
unwillingness to meet its external debt service obligations, but
generally would not include renegotiations of debt in the normal
course of business, such as a renegotiation to allow the borrower to
take advantage of a decline in interest rates or other change in
market conditions.
1 As of November 1995, the OECD included the following
countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United
States; and Saudi Arabia had concluded special lending arrangements
with the IMF associated with the IMF's General Arrangements to
Borrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: August 28, 1995.
Eugene A. Ludwig,
Comptroller of the Currency.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR CHAPTER II
For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System amends 12 CFR parts 208 and 225
as set forth below:
PART 208--MEMBERSHIP OF STATE BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN THE FEDERAL
RESERVE SYSTEM (REGULATION H)
1. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 36, 248(a), 248(c), 321-338a, 371d, 461,
481-486, 601, 611, 1814, 1823(j), 1828(o), 1831o, 1831p-1, 3105,
3310, 3331-3351, and 3906-3909; 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78l(b), 78l(g),
78l(i), 78o-4(c)(5), 78q, 78q-1, and 78w; 31 U.S.C. 5318; 42 U.S.C.
4102a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, 4128.
2. Appendix A to part 208 is amended by revising footnote 22 in
section III.B.1. to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 208--Capital Adequacy Guidelines for State Member
Banks: Risk-Based Measure
* * * * *
III. * * *
B. * * *
1. * * * \22\* * *
* * * * *
\22\The OECD-based group of countries comprises all full members
of the
[[Page 66045]]
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) regardless
of entry date, as well as countries that have concluded special
lending arrangements with the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
associated with the IMF's General Arrangements to Borrow, but
excludes any country that has rescheduled its external sovereign
debt within the previous five years. As of November 1995, the OECD
included the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United
Kingdom, and the United States; and Saudi Arabia had concluded
special lending arrangements with the IMF associated with the IMF's
General Arrangements to Borrow. A rescheduling of external sovereign
debt generally would include any renegotiation of terms arising from
a country's inability or unwillingness to meet its external debt
service obligations, but generally would not include renegotiations
of debt in the normal course of business, such as a renegotiation to
allow the borrower to take advantage of a decline in interest rates
or other change in market conditions.
* * * * *
PART 225--BANK HOLDING COMPANIES AND CHANGE IN BANK CONTROL
(REGULATION Y)
1. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818, 1828(o), 1831i, 1831p-1,
1843(c)(8), 1844(b), 1927(l), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331-3351, 3907, and
3909.
2. Appendix A to part 225 is amended by revising footnote 25 in
section III.B.1. to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 225--Capital Adequacy Guidelines for Bank Holding
Companies: Risk-Based Measure
III. * * *
B. * * *
1. * * * \25\ * * *
* * * * *
\25\The OECD-based group of countries comprises all full members
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
regardless of entry date, as well as countries that have concluded
special lending arrangements with the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) associated with the IMF's General Arrangements to Borrow, but
excludes any country that has rescheduled its external sovereign
debt within the previous five years. As of November 1995, the OECD
included the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United
Kingdom, and the United States; and Saudi Arabia had concluded
special lending arrangements with the IMF associated with the IMF's
General Arrangements to Borrow. A rescheduling of external sovereign
debt generally would include any renegotiation of terms arising from
a country's inability or unwillingness to meet its external debt
service obligations, but generally would not include renegotiations
of debt in the normal course of business, such as a renegotiation to
allow the borrower to take advantage of a decline in interest rates
or other change in market conditions.
* * * * *
By the order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, November 13, 1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR CHAPTER III
For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the Board of
Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends part 325
of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 325--CAPITAL MAINTENANCE
1. The authority citation for part 325 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1815(a), 1815(b), 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b),
1818(c), 1818(t), 1819(tenth), 1828(c), 1828(d), 1828(i), 1828(n),
1828(o), 1831o, 1835, 3907, 3909, 4808; Pub. L. 102-233, 105 Stat.
1761, 1789, 1790 (12 U.S.C. 1831n note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat.
2236, 2355, 2386 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note).
2. Appendix A to part 325 is amended by revising footnote 12 in
section II.B.2. to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 325--Statement of Policy on Risk-Based Capital
* * * * *
II. * * *
B. * * *
2. * * *12 * * *
* * * * *
12 The OECD-based group of countries comprises all full
members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) regardless of entry date, as well as countries that have
concluded special lending arrangements with the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) associated with the IMF's General Arrangements
to Borrow, but excludes any country that has rescheduled its
external sovereign debt within the previous five years. As of
November 1995, the OECD included the following countries: Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,
the United Kingdom, and the United States; and Saudi Arabia had
concluded special lending arrangements with the IMF associated with
the IMF's General Arrangements to Borrow. A rescheduling of external
sovereign debt generally would include any renegotiation of terms
arising from a country's inability or unwillingness to meet its
external debt service obligations, but generally would not include
renegotiations of debt in the normal course of business, such as a
renegotiation to allow the borrower to take advantage of a decline
in interest rates or other change in market conditions.
* * * * *
By order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this 26th day of October, 1995.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Jerry L. Langley,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30664 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 6714-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30617 Section 482 Cost Sharing Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65553-65566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30617]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Parts 1, 301 and 602
[TD 8632]
RIN 1544-AM00
Section 482 Cost Sharing Regulations
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations relating to qualified
cost sharing arrangements under section 482 of the Internal Revenue
Code. These regulations reflect changes to section 482 made by the Tax
Reform Act of 1986, and provide guidance to revenue agents and
taxpayers implementing the changes.
DATES: These regulations are effective January 1, 1996.
These regulations are applicable for taxable years beginning on or
after January 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Sams of the Office of Associate
Chief Counsel (International), IRS (202) 622-3840 (not a toll-free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collections of information contained in these final regulations
have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under
control number 1545-1364. Responses to these collections of information
are required to determine whether an intangible development arrangement
is a qualified cost sharing arrangement and who are the participants in
such arrangement.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid control number.
The estimated average annual burden per recordkeeper is 8 hours.
The estimated average annual burden per respondent is 0.5 hour.
Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and
suggestions for reducing this burden should be sent to the Internal
Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, T:FP, Washington,
DC 20224, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk
Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.
Books and records relating to these collections of information must
be retained as long as their contents may become material in the
administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and
tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Background
Section 482 was amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law
99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, 2561, et. seq. (1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 1) 1, 478).
On January 30, 1992, a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the
section 482 amendment in the context of cost sharing was published in
the Federal Register (INTL-0372-88, 57 FR 3571).
Written comments were received with respect to the notice of
proposed rulemaking, and a public hearing was held on August 31, 1992.
After consideration of all the comments, the proposed regulations under
section 482 are adopted as revised by this Treasury decision, and the
corresponding temporary regulations (which contain the cost sharing
regulations as in effect since 1968) are removed.
Explanation of Provisions
Introduction
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (the Act) amended section 482 to require
that consideration for intangible property transferred in a controlled
transaction be commensurate with the income attributable to the
intangible. The Conference Committee report to the Act indicated that
in revising section 482, Congress did not intend to preclude the use of
bona fide research and development cost sharing arrangements as an
appropriate method of allocating income attributable to intangibles
among related parties. The Conference Committee report stated, however,
that in order for cost sharing arrangements to produce results
consistent with the commensurate-with-income standard, (a) a cost
sharer should be expected to bear its portion of all research and
development costs, on unsuccessful as well as successful products,
within an appropriate product area, and the costs of research and
development at all relevant development stages should be shared, (b)
the allocation of costs generally should be proportionate to profit as
determined before deduction for research and development, and (c) to
the extent that one party contributes funds toward research and
development at a significantly earlier point in time than another (or
is otherwise putting its funds at risk to a greater extent than the
other) that party should receive an appropriate return on its
investment. See H.R. Rep. 99-281, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986) at II-
638.
[[Page 65554]]
The Conference Committee report to the Act recommended that the IRS
conduct a comprehensive study and consider whether the regulations
under section 482 (issued in 1968) should be modified in any respect.
The White Paper
In response to the Conference Committee's directive, the IRS and
the Treasury Department issued a study of intercompany pricing [Notice
88-123 (1988-2 C.B. 458)] on October 18, 1988 (the White Paper). The
White Paper suggested that most bona fide cost sharing arrangements
should have certain provisions. For example, the White Paper stated
that most product areas covered by cost sharing arrangements should be
within three-digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, that most
participants should be assigned exclusive geographic rights in
developed intangibles (and should predict benefits and divide costs
accordingly) and that marketing intangibles should be excluded from
bona fide cost sharing arrangements.
Comments on the White Paper indicated that, in practice, there was
a great deal of variety in the terms of bona fide cost sharing
arrangements, and that if the White Paper's suggestions were
incorporated in regulations, the regulations would unduly restrict the
availability of cost sharing.
The 1992 Proposed Regulations
The IRS issued proposed cost sharing regulations on January 30,
1992 (INTL-0372-88, 57 FR 3571). In general, the proposed regulations
allowed more flexibility than anticipated by the White Paper, relying
on anti-abuse tests rather than requiring standard cost sharing
provisions.
The proposed regulations stated that in order to be qualified, a
cost sharing arrangement had to meet the following five requirements:
(1) the arrangement had to have two or more eligible participants, (2)
the arrangement had to be recorded in writing contemporaneously with
the formation of the cost sharing arrangement, (3) the eligible
participants had to share the costs and risks of intangible development
in return for a specified interest in any intangible produced, (4) the
arrangement had to reflect a reasonable effort by each eligible
participant to share costs and risks in proportion to anticipated
benefits from using developed intangibles, and (5) the arrangement had
to meet certain administrative requirements. The key requirements were
that participants had to be eligible and that costs and risks had to be
proportionate to benefits.
Under the proposed regulations, only a controlled taxpayer that
would use developed intangibles in the active conduct of its trade or
business was eligible to participate in a cost sharing arrangement.
This requirement was considered necessary to ensure that controlled
foreign entities were not established simply to participate in cost
sharing arrangements without performing any other meaningful function,
and to ensure that each participant's share of anticipated benefits was
measurable.
The proposed regulations allowed costs to be divided based on any
measurement that would reasonably predict cost sharing benefits (e.g.,
anticipated units of production or anticipated sales). However, the
basis for measuring anticipated benefits and dividing costs was checked
by a cost-to-operating-income ratio. The method for dividing costs was
presumed to be unreasonable if a U.S. participant's ratio of shared
costs to operating income attributable to developed intangibles was
grossly disproportionate to the cost-to-operating-income ratio of the
other participants.
If a U.S. participant's cost-to-operating-income ratio was not
grossly disproportionate, a section 482 allocation could still be made
under three circumstances: (a) if the cost-to-operating-income ratio
was disproportionate (allocation of costs), (b) if the pool of costs
shared was too broad or too narrow, so that the U.S. participant was
paying for research that it would not use (allocation of costs), or (c)
if the cost-to-operating-income ratio was substantially
disproportionate, such that a transfer of an intangible could be deemed
to have occurred (allocation of income).
Under the proposed regulations, the IRS could also make an
allocation of income to reflect a buy-in or buy-out event, that is, a
transfer of an intangible that could occur, for example, when a
participant joined or left a cost sharing arrangement.
Comments on the 1992 Proposed Regulations
The 1992 proposed cost sharing regulations were generally well
received. However, there were five areas of particular concern to
commenters. The first was the mechanical use of cost-to-operating-
income ratios as a standard for measuring the reasonableness of an
effort to share costs in proportion to anticipated benefits. Commenters
noted that operating income attributable to developed intangibles was
difficult to measure, and that other bases for measuring benefits might
produce more reliable results. Commenters also believed that the ratios
might be overused, leading to adjustments to costs in every year, and
to many deemed transfers of intangibles. In addition, commenters stated
that the ratios did not provide any certainty that a cost sharing
arrangement would not be disregarded, since a ``grossly
disproportionate'' ratio was not numerically defined.
The second area of concern was the eligible participant
requirement. Commenters argued that separate research entities (with no
separate active trade or business) should be allowed to participate in
cost sharing arrangements, as should marketing affiliates. Commenters
also argued that transfers of intangibles to unrelated entities should
not disqualify a participant, and that foreign-to-foreign transfers
should not necessarily be monitored. Some comments also stated that
controlled entities should be able to participate even if their cost
sharing payments would be characterized differently for purposes of
foreign law.
The third area of concern was the regulations' requirement that
every participant be able to benefit from every intangible developed
under a cost sharing arrangement. Commenters stated that the
regulations should allow both single-product cost sharing arrangements
and umbrella cost sharing arrangements (i.e., cost sharing arrangements
under which a broad category of a controlled group's research and
development would be covered).
The fourth area of concern was the buy-in and buy-out rules. There
were some suggestions for clarifying and simplifying the rules. For
example, comments urged that the regulations provide that one
participant's abandonment of its rights would not necessarily confer
benefits on the other participants, and that a new participant need not
always make a buy-in payment when joining a cost sharing arrangement.
Suggestions for simplifying the rules generally consisted of proposed
safe harbors for valuing intangibles.
The final general area of concern was the administrative
requirements. Several commenters suggested that annual adjustments to
the method used to share costs should not be required. Commenters also
suggested that taxpayers not be required to attach their cost sharing
arrangements to their returns, and that the time period for producing
records be increased.
In addition to these general areas of concern, commenters noted
that there should be more guidance about when the IRS would deem a cost
sharing
[[Page 65555]]
arrangement to exist. Commenters also argued that existing cost sharing
arrangements should be grandfathered, or that there should be a longer
transition period. Commenters suggested that financial accounting rules
be used to calculate costs to be shared, and that the IRS address the
impact of currency fluctuations on the cost-to-operating-income ratios.
Finally, commenters asked that the regulations clarify that a cost
sharing arrangement would not be deemed to create a partnership or a
U.S. trade or business.
The Final Regulations
Without fundamentally altering the policies of the 1992 proposed
regulations, the final regulations reflect numerous modifications in
response to the comments described above. They also reflect the
approach of the final section 482 regulations relating to transfers of
tangible and intangible property.
Section 1.482-7(a)(1) defines a cost sharing arrangement as an
agreement for sharing costs in proportion to reasonably anticipated
benefits from the individual exploitation of interests in the
intangibles that are developed. In order to claim the benefits of the
safe harbor, a taxpayer must also satisfy certain formal requirements
(enumerated in Sec. 1.482-7(b)). The district director may apply the
cost sharing rules to any arrangement that in substance constitutes a
cost sharing arrangement, notwithstanding any failure to satisfy
particular requirements of the safe harbor. It is further provided that
a qualified cost sharing arrangement, or an arrangement treated in
substance as such, will not be treated as a partnership. (A
corresponding provision is added to Sec. 301.7701-3 pertaining to the
definition of a partnership.) Neither will a foreign participant be
treated as engaged in a trade or business within the United States
solely by virtue of its participation in such an arrangement.
Section 1.482-7(a)(2) restates the general rule of cost sharing in
a manner intended to emphasize its limitation on allocations: no
section 482 allocation will be made with respect to a qualified cost
sharing arrangement, except to make each controlled participant's share
of the intangible development costs equal to its share of reasonably
anticipated benefits.
Section 1.482-7(b) contains the requirements for a qualified cost
sharing arrangement. This provision substantially tracks the proposed
regulations. A modification was made in the second requirement which
now directs that the arrangement provide a method to calculate each
controlled participant's share of intangible development costs, based
on factors that can reasonably be expected to reflect anticipated
benefits. The new standard is intended to ensure that cost sharing
arrangements will not be disregarded by the IRS as long as the factors
upon which an estimate of benefits was based were reasonable, even if
the estimate proved to be inaccurate.
Section 1.482-7(b)(4) requires that a cost sharing arrangement be
set forth in writing and contain a number of specified provisions,
including the interest that each controlled participant will receive in
any intangibles developed pursuant to the arrangement. The intangibles
developed under a cost sharing arrangement are referred to as the
``covered intangibles.'' It is possible that the research activity
undertaken may result in development of intangible property that was
not foreseen at the inception of the cost sharing arrangement; any such
property is also included within the definition of the term covered
intangibles. The prescriptive rules in relation to the scope of the
intangible development area under the proposed regulations are
eliminated in favor of a flexible definition that encompasses any
research and development actually undertaken under the cost sharing
arrangement.
Section 1.482-7(c) provides rules for being a participant in a
qualified cost sharing arrangement. Unlike the proposed regulations,
the final regulations permit participation by unrelated persons, which
are referred to as ``uncontrolled participants.'' Controlled taxpayers
may be participants, referred to as ``controlled participants,'' if
they satisfy the conditions set forth in these rules. These
qualification rules replace the proposed regulations' concept of
``eligible participant.'' The tax treatment of controlled taxpayers
that do not qualify as controlled participants provided in Sec. 1.482-
7(c)(4) essentially tracks the treatment provided for ineligible
participants under the proposed regulations.
The requirements for being a controlled participant are basically
the same as in the proposed regulations. In particular, a controlled
participant must use or reasonably expect to use covered intangibles in
the active conduct of a trade or business. Thus, an entity that chiefly
provides services (e.g., as a contract researcher) may not be a
controlled participant. These provisions are necessary for the reason
that they are necessary to the proposed regulations: to prevent foreign
controlled entities from being established simply to participate in
cost sharing arrangements. In accordance with Sec. 1.482-7(c)(4)
mentioned above, service entities (such as contract researchers) may
furnish research and development services to the members of a qualified
cost sharing arrangement, with the appropriate consideration for such
assistance in the research and development undertaken in the intangible
development area being governed by the rules in Sec. 1.482-
4(f)(3)(iii) (Allocations with respect to assistance provided to the
owner). In the case of a controlled research entity, the appropriate
arm's length compensation would generally be determined under the
principles of Sec. 1.482-2(b) (Performance of services for another).
Each controlled participant would be deemed to incur as part of its
intangible development costs a share of such compensation equal to its
share of reasonably anticipated benefits.
As under the proposed regulations, the activity of another person
may be attributed to a controlled taxpayer for purposes of meeting the
active conduct requirement. However, modified language is adopted to be
more precise concerning the intended requirements for attribution.
These requirements were phrased in the proposed regulations as bearing
the risk and receiving the benefits of the attributed activity. Under
the final regulations, the attribution will be made only in cases in
which the controlled taxpayer exercises substantial managerial and
operational control over the attributed activities.
As under the proposed regulations, a principal purpose to use cost
sharing to accomplish a transfer or license of covered intangibles to
uncontrolled or controlled taxpayers will defeat satisfaction of the
active conduct requirement. However, a principal purpose will not be
implied where there are legitimate business reasons for subsequently
licensing covered intangibles.
The subgroup rules of the proposed regulations are eliminated.
Their major purpose is accomplished by a simpler provision (see the
discussion of Sec. 1.482-7(h)). In addition, the final regulations
treat all members of a consolidated group as a single participant.
Section 1.482-7(d) defines intangible development costs as
operating expenses other than depreciation and amortization expense,
plus an arm's length charge for tangible property made available to the
cost sharing arrangement. Costs to be shared include all costs relating
to the intangible development area, which, as noted, comprises any
research actually undertaken under the cost sharing
[[Page 65556]]
arrangement. As under the proposed regulations, the district director
may adjust the pool of costs shared in order to properly reflect costs
that relate to the intangible development area.
Section 1.482-7(e) defines anticipated benefits as additional
income generated or costs saved by the use of covered intangibles. The
pool of benefits may also be adjusted in order to properly reflect
benefits that relate to the intangible development area.
Section 1.482-7(f) governs cost allocations by the district
director in order to make a controlled participant's share of costs
equal to its share of reasonably anticipated benefits. Anticipated
benefits of uncontrolled participants will be excluded from anticipated
benefits in calculating the benefits shares of controlled participants.
A share of reasonably anticipated benefits will be determined using the
most reliable estimate of benefits. This rule echoes the best method
rule for determining the most reliable measure of an arm's length
result under Sec. 1.482-1(c).
The reliability of an estimate of benefits principally depends on
two factors: the reliability of the basis for measuring benefits used
and the reliability of the projections used. The cost-to-operating-
income ratio used in the proposed regulations to check the
reasonableness of an effort to share costs in proportion to anticipated
benefits has not been included in the final regulations. Rather, the
final regulations provide that an allocation of costs or income may be
made if the taxpayer did not use the most reliable estimate of
benefits, which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Section 1.482-7(f)(3)(ii) provides that in estimating a controlled
participant's share of benefits, the most reliable basis for measuring
anticipated benefits must be used, taking into account the factors set
forth in Sec. 1.482-1(c)(2)(ii). The measurement basis used must be
consistent for all controlled participants. The regulations provide
that benefits may be measured directly or indirectly. In addition,
regardless of whether a direct or indirect basis of measurement is
employed, it may be necessary to make adjustments to account for
material differences in the activities that controlled participants
perform in connection with exploitation of covered intangibles, such as
between wholesale and retail distribution.
Section 1.482-7(f)(3)(iii) describes the scope of various indirect
bases for measuring benefits, such as units, sales, and operating
profit. Indirect bases other than those enumerated may be employed as
long as they bear a relationship to benefits.
Section 1.482-7(f)(3)(iv) discusses projections used to estimate
benefits. Projections required for this purpose generally include a
determination of the time period between the inception of the research
and development and the receipt of benefits, a projection of the time
over which benefits will be received, and a projection of the benefits
anticipated for each year in which it is anticipated that the
intangible will generate benefits. However, the regulations note that
in certain circumstances, current annual benefit shares may be used in
lieu of projections.
Section 1.482-7(f)(3)(iv)(B) states that a significant divergence
between projected and actual benefit shares may indicate that the
projections were not reliable. A significant divergence is defined as
divergence in excess of 20% between projected and actual benefit
shares. If there is a significant divergence, which is not due to an
unforeseeable event, then the district director may use actual benefits
as the most reliable basis for measuring benefits. Conversely, no
allocation will be made based on a divergence that is not considered
significant as long as the estimate is made using the most reliable
basis for measuring benefits.
For purposes of the 20% test, all non-U.S. controlled participants
are treated as a single controlled participant in order that a
divergence by a foreign controlled participant with a very small share
of the total costs will not necessarily trigger an allocation (section
1.482-7(f)(3)(iv)(D), Example 8, illustrates this rule). Section 1.482-
7(f)(3)(iv)(B) and (C) notes that adjustments among foreign controlled
participants will only be made if the adjustment will have a
substantial U.S. tax impact, for example, under subpart F.
Section 1.482-7(f)(4) states that cost allocations must be
reflected for tax purposes in the year in which costs were incurred.
This reflects a change from the rule in the 1992 proposed regulations,
which stated that cost allocations would be included in income in the
taxable year under review, even if the costs to be allocated were
incurred in a prior taxable year. The purpose of the change was to
match up cost adjustments with the year to which they relate in
accordance with the clear reflection of income principle of section
482.
Section 1.482-7(g) provides buy-in and buy-out rules that are
similar to the rules in the proposed regulations. However, some of the
clarifications suggested by commenters have been incorporated in these
rules. A ``substantially disproportionate'' cost-to-operating-income
ratio will no longer trigger an adjustment to income under these rules.
However, if, after any cost allocations authorized by Sec. 1.482-
7(a)(2), the economic substance of the arrangement is inconsistent with
the terms of the arrangement over a period of years (for example,
through a consistent pattern of one controlled participant bearing an
inappropriately high or low share of the cost of intangible
development), then the district director may impute an agreement
consistent with the course of conduct. In that case, one or more of the
participants would be deemed to own a greater interest in covered
intangibles than provided under the arrangement, and must receive buy-
in payments from the other participants.
The rules do not provide safe harbor methods for valuing
intangibles, but rely on the intangible valuation rules of Secs. 1.482-
1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6. To the extent some participants furnish
a disproportionately greater amount of existing intangibles to the
arrangement, they must be compensated by royalties by the participants
who furnish a disproportionately lesser amount of existing intangibles
to the arrangement. Buy-in payments owed are netted against payments
owing, and only the net payment is treated as a royalty. No implication
is intended that netting of cross royalties is permissible outside of
the qualified cost sharing safe harbor rules.
Section 1.482-7(h) provides rules regarding the character of
payments made pursuant to a qualified cost sharing arrangement. Cost
sharing payments received are generally treated as reductions of
research and development expense. A net approach is applied to foster
simplicity and generally preserve the character of items actually
incurred by a participant to the extent not reimbursed. In addition,
for purposes of the research credit determined under section 41, cost
sharing payments among controlled participants will be treated as
provided for intra-group transactions in Sec. 1.41-8(e). Finally, any
payment that in substance constitutes a cost sharing payment will be
treated as such, regardless of its characterization under foreign law.
This rule is intended to enable foreign entities to participate in cost
sharing arrangements with U.S. controlled participants even if foreign
law does not recognize cost sharing. This rule obviated the main reason
for the subgroup rules which, as noted, have accordingly been
eliminated.
[[Page 65557]]
Section 1.482-7(i) requires that controlled participants must use a
consistent accounting method for measuring costs and benefits, and must
translate foreign currencies on a consistent basis. To the extent that
the accounting method materially differs from U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles, any such material differences must be
documented, as provided in Sec. 1.482-7(j)(2)(iv).
Section 1.482-7(j) provides simplified recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. It is anticipated that many of the background documents
necessary for purposes of this section will be kept pursuant to section
6662(e) and the regulations thereunder.
Section 1.482-7(k) provides that this regulation is effective for
taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1996.
Section 1.482-7(l) allows a one-year transition period for
taxpayers to conform their cost sharing arrangements with the
requirements of the final regulations. A longer period was not
considered necessary, given the increased flexibility and the reduced
number of administrative requirements of the final regulations.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that
section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5)
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to
these regulations, and, therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code,
the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was
submitted to the Small Business Administration for comment on its
impact on small business.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these regulations is Lisa Sams, Office of
Associate Chief Counsel (International), IRS. However, other personnel
from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
List of Subjects
26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 301
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income
taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 602
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1, 301 and 602 are amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority for part 1 is amended by adding an entry
for section 1.482-7 to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
Section 1.482-7 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 482. * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.482-0 is amended by:
1. Removing the entry for Sec. 1.482-7T.
2. Adding the entry for Sec. 1.482-7 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.482-0 Outline of regulations under 482.
* * * * *
Sec. 1.482-7 Sharing of costs.
(a) In general.
(1) Scope and application of the rules in this section.
(2) Limitation on allocations.
(3) Cross references.
(b) Qualified cost sharing arrangement.
(c) Participant.
(1) In general.
(2) Active conduct of a trade or business.
(i) Trade or business.
(ii) Active conduct.
(iii) Examples.
(3) Use of covered intangibles in the active conduct of a trade
or business.
(i) In general.
(ii) Example.
(4) Treatment of a controlled taxpayer that is not a controlled
participant.
(i) In general.
(ii) Example.
(5) Treatment of consolidated group.
(d(d) Costs.
(1) Intangible development costs.
(2) Examples.
(e) Anticipated benefits.
(1) Benefits.
(2) Reasonably anticipated benefits.
(f) Cost allocations.
(1) In general.
(2) Share of intangible development costs.
(i) In general.
(ii) Example.
(3) Share of reasonably anticipated benefits.
(i) In general.
(ii) Measure of benefits.
(iii) Indirect bases for measuring anticipated benefits.
(A) Units used, produced or sold.
(B) Sales.
(C) Operating profit.
(D) Other bases for measuring anticipated benefits.
(E) Examples.
(iv) Projections used to estimate anticipated benefits.
(A) In general.
(B) Unreliable projections.
(C) Foreign-to-foreign adjustments.
(D) Examples.
(4) Timing of allocations.
(g) Allocations of income, deductions or other tax items to
reflect transfers of intangibles (buy-in).
(1) In general.
(2) Pre-existing intangibles.
(3) New controlled participant.
(4) Controlled participant relinquishes interests.
(5) Conduct inconsistent with the terms of a cost sharing
arrangement.
(6)Failure to assign interests under a qualified cost sharing
arrangement.
(7) Form of consideration.
(i) Lump sum payments.
(ii) Installment payments.
(iii) Royalties.
(8) Examples.e
(h) Character of payments made pursuant to a qualified cost
sharing arrangement.
(1) In general.
(2) Examples.
(i) Accounting requirements.
(j) Administrative requirements.
(1) In general.
(2) Documentation.
(3) Reporting requirements.
(k) Effective date.
(l) Transition rule.
* * * * *
Par. 3. Section 1.482-7 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1.482-7 Sharing of costs.
(a) In general--(1) Scope and application of the rules in this
section. A cost sharing arrangement is an agreement under which the
parties agree to share the costs of development of one or more
intangibles in proportion to their shares of reasonably anticipated
benefits from their individual exploitation of the interests in the
intangibles assigned to them under the arrangement. A taxpayer may
claim that a cost sharing arrangement is a qualified cost sharing
arrangement only if the agreement meets the requirements of paragraph
(b) of this section. Consistent with the rules of Sec. 1.482-
1(d)(3)(ii)(B) (Identifying contractual terms), the district director
may apply the rules of this section to any arrangement that in
substance constitutes a cost sharing arrangement, notwithstanding a
failure to comply with any requirement of this section. A qualified
cost sharing arrangement, or an arrangement to which the district
director applies the rules of this section, will not be treated as a
partnership to which the rules of subchapter K apply. See
Sec. 301.7701-3(e) of this chapter. Furthermore, a participant that is
a foreign corporation or nonresident alien individual will not be
treated as engaged in trade or business within the United States solely
[[Page 65558]]
by reason of its participation in such an arrangement. See generally
Sec. 1.864-2(a).
(2) Limitation on allocations. The district director shall not make
allocations with respect to a qualified cost sharing arrangement except
to the extent necessary to make each controlled participant's share of
the costs (as determined under paragraph (d) of this section) of
intangible development under the qualified cost sharing arrangement
equal to its share of reasonably anticipated benefits attributable to
such development, under the rules of this section. If a controlled
taxpayer acquires an interest in intangible property from another
controlled taxpayer (other than in consideration for bearing a share of
the costs of the intangible's development), then the district director
may make appropriate allocations to reflect an arm's length
consideration for the acquisition of the interest in such intangible
under the rules of Secs. 1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6. See
paragraph (g) of this section. An interest in an intangible includes
any commercially transferable interest, the benefits of which are
susceptible of valuation. See Sec. 1.482-4(b) for the definition of an
intangible.
(3) Cross references. Paragraph (c) of this section defines
participant. Paragraph (d) of this section defines the costs of
intangible development. Paragraph (e) of this section defines the
anticipated benefits of intangible development. Paragraph (f) of this
section provides rules governing cost allocations. Paragraph (g) of
this section provides rules governing transfers of intangibles other
than in consideration for bearing a share of the costs of the
intangible's development. Rules governing the character of payments
made pursuant to a qualified cost sharing arrangement are provided in
paragraph (h) of this section. Paragraph (i) of this section provides
accounting requirements. Paragraph (j) of this section provides
administrative requirements. Paragraph (k) of this section provides an
effective date. Paragraph (l) provides a transition rule.
(b) Qualified cost sharing arrangement. A qualified cost sharing
arrangement must--
(1) Include two or more participants;
(2) Provide a method to calculate each controlled participant's
share of intangible development costs, based on factors that can
reasonably be expected to reflect that participant's share of
anticipated benefits;
(3) Provide for adjustment to the controlled participants' shares
of intangible development costs to account for changes in economic
conditions, the business operations and practices of the participants,
and the ongoing development of intangibles under the arrangement; and
(4) Be recorded in a document that is contemporaneous with the
formation (and any revision) of the cost sharing arrangement and that
includes--
(i) A list of the arrangement's participants, and any other member
of the controlled group that will benefit from the use of intangibles
developed under the cost sharing arrangement;
(ii) The information described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of
this section;
(iii) A description of the scope of the research and development to
be undertaken, including the intangible or class of intangibles
intended to be developed;
(iv) A description of each participant's interest in any covered
intangibles. A covered intangible is any intangible property that is
developed as a result of the research and development undertaken under
the cost sharing arrangement (intangible development area);
(v) The duration of the arrangement; and
(vi) The conditions under which the arrangement may be modified or
terminated and the consequences of such modification or termination,
such as the interest that each participant will receive in any covered
intangibles.
(c) Participant--(1) In general. For purposes of this section, a
participant is a controlled taxpayer that meets the requirements of
this paragraph (c)(1) (controlled participant) or an uncontrolled
taxpayer that is a party to the cost sharing arrangement (uncontrolled
participant). See Sec. 1.482-1(i)(5) for the definitions of controlled
and uncontrolled taxpayers. A controlled taxpayer may be a controlled
participant only if it--
(i) Uses or reasonably expects to use covered intangibles in the
active conduct of a trade or business, under the rules of paragraphs
(c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section;
(ii) Substantially complies with the accounting requirements
described in paragraph (i) of this section; and
(iii) Substantially complies with the administrative requirements
described in paragraph (j) of this section.
(2) Active conduct of a trade or business--(i) Trade or business.
The rules of Sec. 1.367(a)-2T(b)(2) apply in determining whether the
activities of a controlled taxpayer constitute a trade or business. For
this purpose, the term controlled taxpayer must be substituted for the
term foreign corporation.
(ii) Active conduct. In general, a controlled taxpayer actively
conducts a trade or business only if it carries out substantial
managerial and operational activities. For purposes only of this
paragraph (c)(2), activities carried out on behalf of a controlled
taxpayer by another person may be attributed to the controlled
taxpayer, but only if the controlled taxpayer exercises substantial
managerial and operational control over those activities.
(iii) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph
(c)(2):
Example 1. Foreign Parent (FP) enters into a cost sharing
arrangement with its U.S. Subsidiary (USS) to develop a cheaper
process for manufacturing widgets. USS is to receive the right to
exploit the intangible to make widgets in North America, and FP is
to receive the right to exploit the intangible to make widgets in
the rest of the world. However, USS does not manufacture widgets;
rather, USS acts as a distributor for FP's widgets in North America.
Because USS is simply a distributor of FP's widgets, USS does not
use or reasonably expect to use the manufacturing intangible in the
active conduct of its trade or business, and thus USS is not a
controlled participant.
Example 2. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that
USS contracts to have widgets it sells in North America made by a
related manufacturer (that is not a controlled participant) using
USS' cheaper manufacturing process. USS purchases all the
manufacturing inputs, retains ownership of the work in process as
well as the finished product, and bears the risk of loss at all
times in connection with the operation. USS compensates the
manufacturer for the manufacturing functions it performs and
receives substantially all of the intangible value attributable to
the cheaper manufacturing process. USS exercises substantial
managerial and operational control over the manufacturer to ensure
USS's requirements are satisfied concerning the timing, quantity,
and quality of the widgets produced. USS uses the manufacturing
intangible in the active conduct of its trade or business, and thus
USS is a controlled participant.
(3) Use of covered intangibles in the active conduct of a trade or
business--(i) In general. A covered intangible will not be considered
to be used, nor will the controlled taxpayer be considered to
reasonably expect to use it, in the active conduct of the controlled
taxpayer's trade or business if a principal purpose for participating
in the arrangement is to obtain the intangible for transfer or license
to a controlled or uncontrolled taxpayer.
(ii) Example. The following example illustrates the absence of such
a principal purpose:
Example. Controlled corporations A, B, and C enter into a
qualified cost sharing arrangement for the purpose of developing a
new technology. Costs are shared equally
[[Page 65559]]
among the three controlled taxpayers. A, B, and C have the exclusive
rights to manufacture and sell products based on the new technology
in North America, South America, and Europe, respectively. When the
new technology is developed, C expects to use it to manufacture and
sell products in most of Europe. However, for sound business
reasons, C expects to license to an unrelated manufacturer the right
to use the new technology to manufacture and sell products within a
particular European country owing to its relative remoteness and
small size. In these circumstances, C has not entered into the
arrangement with a principal purpose of obtaining covered
intangibles for transfer or license to controlled or uncontrolled
taxpayers, because the purpose of licensing the technology to the
unrelated manufacturer is relatively insignificant in comparison to
the overall purpose of exploiting the European market.
(4) Treatment of a controlled taxpayer that is not a controlled
participant--(i) In general. If a controlled taxpayer that is not a
controlled participant (within the meaning of this paragraph (c))
provides assistance in relation to the research and development
undertaken in the intangible development area, it must receive
consideration from the controlled participants under the rules of
Sec. 1.482-4(f)(3)(iii) (Allocations with respect to assistance
provided to the owner). For purposes of paragraph (d) of this section,
such consideration is treated as an operating expense and each
controlled participant must be treated as incurring a share of such
consideration equal to its share of reasonably anticipated benefits (as
defined in paragraph (f)(3) of this section).
(ii) Example. The following example illustrates this paragraph
(c)(4):
Example. (i) U.S. Parent (USP), one foreign subsidiary (FS), and
a second foreign subsidiary constituting the group's research arm
(R+D) enter into a cost sharing agreement to develop manufacturing
intangibles for a new product line A. USP and FS are assigned the
exclusive rights to exploit the intangibles respectively in the
United States and Europe, where each presently manufactures and
sells various existing product lines. R+D, whose activity consists
solely in carrying out research for the group, is assigned the
rights to exploit the new technology in Asia, where no group member
presently operates, but which is reliably projected to be a major
market for product A. R+D will license the Asian rights to an
unrelated third party. It is reliably projected that the shares of
reasonably anticipated benefits of USP and FS (i.e., not taking R+D
into account) will be 66 \2/3\% and 33 \1/3\%, respectively. The
parties' agreement provides that USP and FS will reimburse 40% and
20%, respectively, of the intangible development costs incurred by
R+D with respect to the new intangible.
(ii) R+D does not qualify as a controlled participant within the
meaning of paragraph (c) of this section. Therefore, R+D is treated
as a service provider for purposes of this section and must receive
arm's length consideration for the assistance it is deemed to
provide to USP and FS, under the rules of Sec. 1.482-4(f)(3)(iii).
Such consideration must be treated as intangible development costs
incurred by USP and FS in proportion to their shares of reasonably
anticipated benefits (i.e., 66 \2/3\% and 33 \1/3\%, respectively).
R+D will not be considered to bear any share of the intangible
development costs under the arrangement.
(iii) The Asian rights nominally assigned to R+D under the
agreement must be treated as being held by USP and FS in accordance
with their shares of the intangible development costs (i.e., 66 \2/
3\% and 33 \1/3\%, respectively). See paragraph (g)(6) of this
section. Thus, since under the cost sharing agreement the Asian
rights are owned by R+D, the district director may make allocations
to reflect an arm's length consideration owed by R+D to USP and FS
for these rights under the rules of Secs. 1.482-1 and 1.482-4
through 1.482-6.
(5) Treatment of consolidated group. For purposes of this section,
all members of the same affiliated group (within the meaning of section
1504(a)) that join in the filing of a consolidated return for the
taxable year under section 1501 shall be treated as one taxpayer.
(d) Costs--(1) Intangible development costs. For purposes of this
section, a controlled participant's costs of developing intangibles for
a taxable year mean all of the costs incurred by that participant
related to the intangible development area, plus all of the cost
sharing payments it makes to other controlled and uncontrolled
participants, minus all of the cost sharing payments it receives from
other controlled and uncontrolled participants. Costs incurred related
to the intangible development area consist of the following items:
operating expenses as defined in Sec. 1.482-5(d)(3), other than
depreciation or amortization expense, plus (to the extent not included
in such operating expenses, as defined in Sec. 1.482-5(d)(3)) the
charge for the use of any tangible property made available to the
qualified cost sharing arrangement. If tangible property is made
available to the qualified cost sharing arrangement by a controlled
participant, the determination of the appropriate charge will be
governed by the rules of Sec. 1.482-2(c) (Use of tangible property).
Intangible development costs do not include the consideration for the
use of any intangible property made available to the qualified cost
sharing arrangement. See paragraph (g)(2) of this section. If a
particular cost contributes to the intangible development area and
other areas or other business activities, the cost must be allocated
between the intangible development area and the other areas or business
activities on a reasonable basis. In such a case, it is necessary to
estimate the total benefits attributable to the cost incurred. The
share of such cost allocated to the intangible development area must
correspond to covered intangibles' share of the total benefits. Costs
that do not contribute to the intangible development area are not taken
into account.
(2) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph (d):
Example 1. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) enter
into a qualified cost sharing arrangement to develop a better
mousetrap. USS and FP share the costs of FP's research and
development facility that will be exclusively dedicated to this
research, the salaries of the researchers, and reasonable overhead
costs attributable to the project. They also share the cost of a
conference facility that is at the disposal of the senior executive
management of each company but does not contribute to the research
and development activities in any measurable way. In this case, the
cost of the conference facility must be excluded from the amount of
intangible development costs.
Example 2. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign Subsidiary (FS) enter
into a qualified cost sharing arrangement to develop a new device.
USP and FS share the costs of a research and development facility,
the salaries of researchers, and reasonable overhead costs
attributable to the project. USP also incurs costs related to field
testing of the device, but does not include them in the amount of
intangible development costs of the cost sharing arrangement. The
district director may determine that the field testing costs are
intangible development costs that must be shared.
(e) Anticipated benefits--(1) Benefits. Benefits are additional
income generated or costs saved by the use of covered intangibles.
(2) Reasonably anticipated benefits. For purposes of this section,
a controlled participant's reasonably anticipated benefits are the
aggregate benefits that it reasonably anticipates that it will derive
from covered intangibles.
(f) Cost allocations--(1) In general. For purposes of determining
whether a cost allocation authorized by paragraph (a)(2) of this
section is appropriate for a taxable year, a controlled participant's
share of intangible development costs for the taxable year under a
qualified cost sharing arrangement must be compared to its share of
reasonably anticipated benefits under the arrangement. A controlled
participant's share of intangible development costs is determined under
paragraph (f)(2) of this section. A controlled participant's share of
reasonably anticipated benefits under the arrangement is determined
under paragraph (f)(3) of this section. In
[[Page 65560]]
determining whether benefits were reasonably anticipated, it may be
appropriate to compare actual benefits to anticipated benefits, as
described in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section.
(2) Share of intangible development costs--(i) In general. A
controlled participant's share of intangible development costs for a
taxable year is equal to its intangible development costs for the
taxable year (as defined in paragraph (d) of this section), divided by
the sum of the intangible development costs for the taxable year (as
defined in paragraph (d) of this section) of all the controlled
participants.
(ii) Example. The following example illustrates this paragraph
(f)(2):
Example. (i) U.S. Parent (USP), Foreign Subsidiary (FS), and
Unrelated Third Party (UTP) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to
develop new audio technology. In the first year of the arrangement,
the controlled participants incur $2,250,000 in the intangible
development area, all of which is incurred directly by USP. In the
first year, UTP makes a $250,000 cost sharing payment to USP, and FS
makes a $800,000 cost sharing payment to USP, under the terms of the
arrangement. For that year, the intangible development costs borne
by USP are $1,200,000 (its $2,250,000 intangible development costs
directly incurred, minus the cost sharing payments it receives of
$250,000 from UTP and $800,000 from FS); the intangible development
costs borne by FS are $800,000 (its cost sharing payment); and the
intangible development costs borne by all of the controlled
participants are $2,000,000 (the sum of the intangible development
costs borne by USP and FS of $1,200,000 and $800,000, respectively).
Thus, for the first year, USP's share of intangible development
costs is 60% ($1,200,000 divided by $2,000,000), and FS's share of
intangible development costs is 40% ($800,000 divided by
$2,000,000).
(ii) For purposes of determining whether a cost allocation
authorized by paragraph Sec. 1.482-7(a)(2) is appropriate for the
first year, the district director must compare USP's and FS's shares
of intangible development costs for that year to their shares of
reasonably anticipated benefits. See paragraph (f)(3) of this
section.
(3) Share of reasonably anticipated benefits--(i) In general. A
controlled participant's share of reasonably anticipated benefits under
a qualified cost sharing arrangement is equal to its reasonably
anticipated benefits (as defined in paragraph (e)(2) of this section),
divided by the sum of the reasonably anticipated benefits (as defined
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section) of all the controlled
participants. The anticipated benefits of an uncontrolled participant
will not be included for purposes of determining each controlled
participant's share of anticipated benefits. A controlled participant's
share of reasonably anticipated benefits will be determined using the
most reliable estimate of reasonably anticipated benefits. In
determining which of two or more available estimates is most reliable,
the quality of the data and assumptions used in the analysis must be
taken into account, consistent with Sec. 1.482-1(c)(2)(ii) (Data and
assumptions). Thus, the reliability of an estimate will depend largely
on the completeness and accuracy of the data, the soundness of the
assumptions, and the relative effects of particular deficiencies in
data or assumptions on different estimates. If two estimates are
equally reliable, no adjustment should be made based on differences in
the results. The following factors will be particularly relevant in
determining the reliability of an estimate of anticipated benefits--
(A) The reliability of the basis used for measuring benefits, as
described in paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section; and
(B) The reliability of the projections used to estimate benefits,
as described in paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section.
(ii) Measure of benefits. In order to estimate a controlled
participant's share of anticipated benefits from covered intangibles,
the amount of benefits that each of the controlled participants is
reasonably anticipated to derive from covered intangibles must be
measured on a basis that is consistent for all such participants. See
paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(E), Example 8, of this section. Anticipated
benefits are measured either on a direct basis, by reference to
estimated additional income to be generated or costs to be saved by the
use of covered intangibles, or on an indirect basis, by reference to
certain measurements that reasonably can be assumed to be related to
income generated or costs saved. Such indirect bases of measurement of
anticipated benefits are described in paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this
section. A controlled participant's anticipated benefits must be
measured on the most reliable basis, whether direct or indirect. In
determining which of two bases of measurement of reasonably anticipated
benefits is most reliable, the factors set forth in Sec. 1.482-
1(c)(2)(ii) (Data and assumptions) must be taken into account. It
normally will be expected that the basis that provided the most
reliable estimate for a particular year will continue to provide the
most reliable estimate in subsequent years, absent a material change in
the factors that affect the reliability of the estimate. Regardless of
whether a direct or indirect basis of measurement is used, adjustments
may be required to account for material differences in the activities
that controlled participants undertake to exploit their interests in
covered intangibles. See Example 6 of paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(E) of this
section.
(iii) Indirect bases for measuring anticipated benefits. Indirect
bases for measuring anticipated benefits from participation in a
qualified cost sharing arrangement include the following:
(A) Units used, produced or sold. Units of items used, produced or
sold by each controlled participant in the business activities in which
covered intangibles are exploited may be used as an indirect basis for
measuring its anticipated benefits. This basis of measurement will be
more reliable to the extent that each controlled participant is
expected to have a similar increase in net profit or decrease in net
loss attributable to the covered intangibles per unit of the item or
items used, produced or sold. This circumstance is most likely to arise
when the covered intangibles are exploited by the controlled
participants in the use, production or sale of substantially uniform
items under similar economic conditions.
(B) Sales. Sales by each controlled participant in the business
activities in which covered intangibles are exploited may be used as an
indirect basis for measuring its anticipated benefits. This basis of
measurement will be more reliable to the extent that each controlled
participant is expected to have a similar increase in net profit or
decrease in net loss attributable to covered intangibles per dollar of
sales. This circumstance is most likely to arise if the costs of
exploiting covered intangibles are not substantial relative to the
revenues generated, or if the principal effect of using covered
intangibles is to increase the controlled participants' revenues (e.g.,
through a price premium on the products they sell) without affecting
their costs substantially. Sales by each controlled participant are
unlikely to provide a reliable basis for measuring benefits unless each
controlled participant operates at the same market level (e.g.,
manufacturing, distribution, etc.).
(C) Operating profit. Operating profit of each controlled
participant from the activities in which covered intangibles are
exploited may be used as an indirect basis for measuring its
anticipated benefits. This basis of measurement will be more reliable
to the extent that such profit is largely attributable to the use of
covered intangibles, or if the share of profits attributable to the use
of covered intangibles is expected to be similar for each controlled
participant. This circumstance is most likely to arise when covered
intangibles are integral to the activity that generates the profit and
[[Page 65561]]
the activity could not be carried on or would generate little profit
without use of those intangibles.
(D) Other bases for measuring anticipated benefits. Other bases for
measuring anticipated benefits may, in some circumstances, be
appropriate, but only to the extent that there is expected to be a
reasonably identifiable relationship between the basis of measurement
used and additional income generated or costs saved by the use of
covered intangibles. For example, a division of costs based on employee
compensation would be considered unreliable unless there were a
relationship between the amount of compensation and the expected income
of the controlled participants from the use of covered intangibles.
(E) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph
(f)(3)(iii):
Example 1. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) both
produce a feedstock for the manufacture of various high-performance
plastic products. Producing the feedstock requires large amounts of
electricity, which accounts for a significant portion of its
production cost. FP and USS enter into a cost sharing arrangement to
develop a new process that will reduce the amount of electricity
required to produce a unit of the feedstock. FP and USS currently
both incur an electricity cost of X% of its other production costs
and rates for each are expected to remain similar in the future. How
much the new process, if it is successful, will reduce the amount of
electricity required to produce a unit of the feedstock is
uncertain, but it will be about the same amount for both companies.
Therefore, the cost savings each company is expected to achieve
after implementing the new process are similar relative to the total
amount of the feedstock produced. Under the cost sharing arrangement
FP and USS divide the costs of developing the new process based on
the units of the feedstock each is anticipated to produce in the
future. In this case, units produced is the most reliable basis for
measuring benefits and dividing the intangible development costs
because each participant is expected to have a similar decrease in
costs per unit of the feedstock produced.
Example 2. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that
USS pays X% of its other production costs for electricity while FP
pays 2X% of its other production costs. In this case, units produced
is not the most reliable basis for measuring benefits and dividing
the intangible development costs because the participants do not
expect to have a similar decrease in costs per unit of the feedstock
produced. The district director determines that the most reliable
measure of benefit shares may be based on units of the feedstock
produced if FP's units are weighted relative to USS' units by a
factor of 2. This reflects the fact that FP pays twice as much as
USS as a percentage of its other production costs for electricity
and, therefore, FP's savings per unit of the feedstock would be
twice USS's savings from any new process eventually developed.
Example 3. The facts are the same as in Example 2, except that
to supply the particular needs of the U.S. market USS manufactures
the feedstock with somewhat different properties than FP's
feedstock. This requires USS to employ a somewhat different
production process than does FP. Because of this difference, it will
be more costly for USS to adopt any new process that may be
developed under the cost sharing agreement. In this case, units
produced is not the most reliable basis for measuring benefit
shares. In order to reliably determine benefit shares, the district
director offsets the reasonably anticipated costs of adopting the
new process against the reasonably anticipated total savings in
electricity costs.
Example 4. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign Subsidiary (FS) enter
into a cost sharing arrangement to develop new anesthetic drugs. USP
obtains the right to use any resulting patent in the U.S. market,
and FS obtains the right to use the patent in the European market.
USP and FS divide costs on the basis of anticipated operating profit
from each patent under development. USP anticipates that it will
receive a much higher profit than FS per unit sold because drug
prices are uncontrolled in the U.S., whereas drug prices are
regulated in many European countries. In this case, the controlled
taxpayers' basis for measuring benefits is the most reliable.
Example 5. (i) Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS)
both manufacture and sell fertilizers. They enter into a cost
sharing arrangement to develop a new pellet form of a common
agricultural fertilizer that is currently available only in powder
form. Under the cost sharing arrangement, USS obtains the rights to
produce and sell the new form of fertilizer for the U.S. market
while FP obtains the rights to produce and sell the fertilizer for
the rest of the world. The costs of developing the new form of
fertilizer are divided on the basis of the anticipated sales of
fertilizer in the participants' respective markets.
(ii) If the research and development is successful the pellet
form will deliver the fertilizer more efficiently to crops and less
fertilizer will be required to achieve the same effect on crop
growth. The pellet form of fertilizer can be expected to sell at a
price premium over the powder form of fertilizer based on the
savings in the amount of fertilizer that needs to be used. If the
research and development is successful, the costs of producing
pellet fertilizer are expected to be approximately the same as the
costs of producing powder fertilizer and the same for both FP and
USS. Both FP and USS operate at approximately the same market
levels, selling their fertilizers largely to independent
distributors.
(iii) In this case, the controlled taxpayers' basis for
measuring benefits is the most reliable.
Example 6. The facts are the same as in Example 5, except that
FP distributes its fertilizers directly while USS sells to
independent distributors. In this case, sales of USS and FP are not
the most reliable basis for measuring benefits unless adjustments
are made to account for the difference in market levels at which the
sales occur.
Example 7. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) enter
into a cost sharing arrangement to develop materials that will be
used to train all new entry-level employees. FP and USS determine
that the new materials will save approximately ten hours of training
time per employee. Because their entry-level employees are paid on
differing wage scales, FP and USS decide that they should not divide
costs based on the number of entry-level employees hired by each.
Rather, they divide costs based on compensation paid to the entry-
level employees hired by each. In this case, the basis used for
measuring benefits is the most reliable because there is a direct
relationship between compensation paid to new entry-level employees
and costs saved by FP and USS from the use of the new training
materials.
Example 8. U.S. Parent (USP), Foreign Subsidiary 1 (FS1) and
Foreign Subsidiary 2 (FS2) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to
develop computer software that each will market and install on
customers' computer systems. The participants divide costs on the
basis of projected sales by USP, FS1, and FS2 of the software in
their respective geographic areas. However, FS1 plans for sound
business reasons not only to sell but also to license the software,
and FS1's licensing income (which is a percentage of the licensees'
sales) is not counted in the projected benefits. In this case, the
basis used for measuring the benefits of each participant is not the
most reliable because all of the benefits received by participants
are not taken into account. In order to reliably determine benefit
shares, FS1's projected benefits from licensing must be included in
the measurement on a basis that is the same as that used to measure
its own and the other participants' projected benefits from sales
(e.g., all participants might measure their benefits on the basis of
operating profit).
(iv) Projections used to estimate anticipated benefits--(A) In
general. The reliability of an estimate of anticipated benefits also
depends upon the reliability of projections used in making the
estimate. Projections required for this purpose generally include a
determination of the time period between the inception of the research
and development and the receipt of benefits, a projection of the time
over which benefits will be received, and a projection of the benefits
anticipated for each year in which it is anticipated that the
intangible will generate benefits. A projection of the relevant basis
for measuring anticipated benefits may require a projection of the
factors that underlie it. For example, a projection of operating
profits may require a projection of sales, cost of sales, operating
expenses, and other factors that affect operating profits. If it is
anticipated that there will be significant variation among controlled
participants in the timing of their receipt of benefits, and
consequently
[[Page 65562]]
benefit shares are expected to vary significantly over the years in
which benefits will be received, it may be necessary to use the present
discounted value of the projected benefits to reliably determine each
controlled participant's share of those benefits. If it is not
anticipated that benefit shares will significantly change over time,
current annual benefit shares may provide a reliable projection of
anticipated benefit shares. This circumstance is most likely to occur
when the cost sharing arrangement is a long-term arrangement, the
arrangement covers a wide variety of intangibles, the composition of
the covered intangibles is unlikely to change, the covered intangibles
are unlikely to generate unusual profits, and each controlled
participant's share of the market is stable.
(B) Unreliable projections. A significant divergence between
projected benefit shares and actual benefit shares may indicate that
the projections were not reliable. In such a case, the district
director may use actual benefits as the most reliable measure of
anticipated benefits. If benefits are projected over a period of years,
and the projections for initial years of the period prove to be
unreliable, this may indicate that the projections for the remaining
years of the period are also unreliable and thus should be adjusted.
Projections will not be considered unreliable based on a divergence
between a controlled participant's projected benefit share and actual
benefit share if the amount of such divergence for every controlled
participant is less than or equal to 20% of the participant's projected
benefit share. Further, the district director will not make an
allocation based on such divergence if the difference is due to an
extraordinary event, beyond the control of the participants, that could
not reasonably have been anticipated at the time that costs were
shared. For purposes of this paragraph, all controlled participants
that are not U.S. persons will be treated as a single controlled
participant. Therefore, an adjustment based on an unreliable projection
will be made to the cost shares of foreign controlled participants only
if there is a matching adjustment to the cost shares of controlled
participants that are U.S. persons. Nothing in this paragraph
(f)(3)(iv)(B) will prevent the district director from making an
allocation if the taxpayer did not use the most reliable basis for
measuring anticipated benefits. For example, if the taxpayer measures
anticipated benefits based on units sold, and the district director
determines that another basis is more reliable for measuring
anticipated benefits, then the fact that actual units sold were within
20% of the projected unit sales will not preclude an allocation under
this section.
(C) Foreign-to-foreign adjustments. Notwithstanding the limitations
on adjustments provided in paragraph (f)(3)(iv)(B) of this section,
adjustments to cost shares based on an unreliable projection also may
be made solely among foreign controlled participants if the variation
between actual and projected benefits has the effect of substantially
reducing U.S. tax.
(D) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph
(f)(3)(iv):
Example 1. (i) Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS)
enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop a new car model.
The participants plan to spend four years developing the new model
and four years producing and selling the new model. USS and FP
project total sales of $4 billion and $2 billion, respectively, over
the planned four years of exploitation of the new model. Cost shares
are divided for each year based on projected total sales. Therefore,
USS bears 66\2/3\% of each year's intangible development costs and
FP bears 33\1/3\% of such costs.
(ii) USS typically begins producing and selling new car models a
year after FP begins producing and selling new car models. The
district director determines that in order to reflect USS' one-year
lag in introducing new car models, a more reliable projection of
each participant's share of benefits would be based on a projection
of all four years of sales for each participant, discounted to
present value.
Example 2. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign Subsidiary (FS) enter
into a cost sharing arrangement to develop new and improved
household cleaning products. Both participants have sold household
cleaning products for many years and have stable market shares. The
products under development are unlikely to produce unusual profits
for either participant. The participants divide costs on the basis
of each participant's current sales of household cleaning products.
In this case, the participants' future benefit shares are reliably
projected by current sales of cleaning products.
Example 3. The facts are the same as in Example 2, except that
FS's market share is rapidly expanding because of the business
failure of a competitor in its geographic area. The district
director determines that the participants' future benefit shares are
not reliably projected by current sales of cleaning products and
that FS's benefit projections should take into account its growth in
sales.
Example 4. Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS) enter
into a cost sharing arrangement to develop synthetic fertilizers and
insecticides. FP and USS share costs on the basis of each
participant's current sales of fertilizers and insecticides. The
market shares of the participants have been stable for fertilizers,
but FP's market share for insecticides has been expanding. The
district director determines that the participants' projections of
benefit shares are reliable with regard to fertilizers, but not
reliable with regard to insecticides; a more reliable projection of
benefit shares would take into account the expanding market share
for insecticides.
Example 5. U.S. Parent (USP) and Foreign Subsidiary (FS) enter
into a cost sharing arrangement to develop new food products,
dividing costs on the basis of projected sales two years in the
future. In year 1, USP and FS project that their sales in year 3
will be equal, and they divide costs accordingly. In year 3, the
district director examines the participants' method for dividing
costs. USP and FS actually accounted for 42% and 58% of total sales,
res
FR Doc. 95-30617 Section 482 Cost Sharing Regulations
pectively. The district director agrees that sales two years in
the future provide a reliable basis for estimating benefit shares.
Because the differences between USP's and FS's actual and projected
benefit shares are less than 20% of their projected benefit shares,
the projection of future benefits for year 3 is reliable.
Example 6. The facts are the same as in Example 5, except that
the in year 3 USP and FS actually accounted for 35% and 65% of total
sales, respectively. The divergence between USP's projected and
actual benefit shares is greater than 20% of USP's projected benefit
share and is not due to an extraordinary event beyond the control of
the participants. The district director concludes that the
projection of anticipated benefit shares was unreliable, and uses
actual benefits as the basis for an adjustment to the cost shares
borne by USP and FS.
Example 7. U.S. Parent (USP), a U.S. corporation, and its
foreign subsidiary (FS) enter a cost sharing arrangement in year 1.
They project that they will begin to receive benefits from covered
intangibles in years 4 through 6, and that USP will receive 60% of
total benefits and FS 40% of total benefits. In years 4 through 6,
USP and FS actually receive 50% each of the total benefits. In
evaluating the reliability of the participants' projections, the
district director compares these actual benefit shares to the
projected benefit shares. Although USP's actual benefit share (50%)
is within 20% of its projected benefit share (60%), FS's actual
benefit share (50%) is not within 20% of its projected benefit share
(40%). Based on this discrepancy, the district director may conclude
that the participants' projections were not reliable and may use
actual benefit shares as the basis for an adjustment to the cost
shares borne by USP and FS.
Example 8. Three controlled taxpayers, USP, FS1 and FS2 enter
into a cost sharing arrangement. FS1 and FS2 are foreign. USP is a
United States corporation that controls all the stock of FS1 and
FS2. The participants project that they will share the total
benefits of the covered intangibles in the following percentages:
USP 50%; FS1 30%; and FS2 20%. Actual benefit shares are as follows:
USP 45%; FS1 25%; and FS2 30%. In evaluating the reliability of the
participants' projections, the district director compares these
actual benefit shares to the projected benefit shares. For this
purpose, FS1 and FS2 are treated as a single participant. The actual
benefit share received by USP (45%) is within 20% of its projected
benefit share
[[Page 65563]]
(50%). In addition, the non-US participants' actual benefit share (55%)
is also within 20% of their projected benefit share (50%).
Therefore, the district director concludes that the participants'
projections of future benefits were reliable, despite the fact that
FS2's actual benefit share (30%) is not within 20% of its projected
benefit share (20%).
Example 9. The facts are the same as in Example 8. In addition,
the district director determines that FS2 has significant operating
losses and has no earnings and profits, and that FS1 is profitable
and has earnings and profits. Based on all the evidence, the
district director concludes that the participants arranged that FS1
would bear a larger cost share than appropriate in order to reduce
FS1's earnings and profits and thereby reduce inclusions USP
otherwise would be deemed to have on account of FS1 under subpart F.
Pursuant to Sec. 1.482-7 (f)(3)(iv)(C), the district director may
make an adjustment solely to the cost shares borne by FS1 and FS2
because FS2's projection of future benefits was unreliable and the
variation between actual and projected benefits had the effect of
substantially reducing USP's U.S. income tax liability (on account
of FS1 subpart F income).
Example 10. (i)(A) Foreign Parent (FP) and U.S. Subsidiary (USS)
enter into a cost sharing arrangement in 1996 to develop a new
treatment for baldness. USS's interest in any treatment developed is
the right to produce and sell the treatment in the U.S. market while
FP retains rights to produce and sell the treatment in the rest of
the world. USS and FP measure their anticipated benefits from the
cost sharing arrangement based on their respective projected future
sales of the baldness treatment. The following sales projections are
used:
Sales
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year USS FP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................................... 5 10
1998.................................................... 20 20
1999.................................................... 30 30
2000.................................................... 40 40
2001.................................................... 40 40
2002.................................................... 40 40
2003.................................................... 40 40
2004.................................................... 20 20
2005.................................................... 10 10
2006.................................................... 5 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) In 1997, the first year of sales, USS is projected to have
lower sales than FP due to lags in U.S. regulatory approval for the
baldness treatment. In each subsequent year USS and FP are projected
to have equal sales. Sales are projected to build over the first
three years of the period, level off for several years, and then
decline over the final years of the period as new and improved
baldness treatments reach the market.
(ii) To account for USS's lag in sales in the first year, the
present discounted value of sales over the period is used as the
basis for measuring benefits. Based on the risk associated with this
venture, a discount rate of 10 percent is selected. The present
discounted value of projected sales is determined to be
approximately $154.4 million for USS and $158.9 million for FP. On
this basis USS and FP are projected to obtain approximately 49.3%
and 50.7% of the benefit, respectively, and the costs of developing
the baldness treatment are shared accordingly.
(iii) (A) In the year 2002 the district director examines the
cost sharing arrangement. USS and FP have obtained the following
sales results through the year 2001:
Sales
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year USS FP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................................... 0 17
1998.................................................... 17 35
1999.................................................... 25 41
2000.................................................... 38 41
2001.................................................... 39 41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) USS's sales initially grew more slowly than projected while
FP's sales grew more quickly. In each of the first three years of
the period the share of total sales of at least one of the parties
diverged by over 20% from its projected share of sales. However, by
the year 2001 both parties' sales had leveled off at approximately
their projected values. Taking into account this leveling off of
sales and all the facts and circumstances, the district director
determines that it is appropriate to use the original projections
for the remaining years of sales. Combining the actual results
through the year 2001 with the projections for subsequent years, and
using a discount rate of 10%, the present discounted value of sales
is approximately $141.6 million for USS and $187.3 million for FP.
This result implies that USS and FP obtain approximately 43.1% and
56.9%, respectively, of the anticipated benefits from the baldness
treatment. Because these benefit shares are within 20% of the
benefit shares calculated based on the original sales projections,
the district director determines that, based on the difference
between actual and projected benefit shares, the original
projections were not unreliable. No adjustment is made based on the
difference between actual and projected benefit shares.
Example 11. (i) The facts are the same as in Example 10, except
that the actual sales results through the year 2001 are as follows:
Sales
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year USS FP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................................... 0 17
1998.................................................... 17 35
1999.................................................... 25 44
2000.................................................... 34 54
2001.................................................... 36 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Based on the discrepancy between the projections and the
actual results and on consideration of all the facts, the district
director determines that for the remaining years the following sales
projections are more reliable than the original projections:
Sales
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year USS FP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002................................................... 36 55
2003................................................... 36 55
2004................................................... 18 28
2005................................................... 9 14
2006................................................... 4.5 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Combining the actual results through the year 2001 with
the projections for subsequent years, and using a discount rate of
10%, the present discounted value of sales is approximately $131.2
million for USS and $229.4 million for FP. This result implies that
USS and FP obtain approximately 35.4% and 63.6%, respectively, of
the anticipated benefits from the baldness treatment. These benefit
shares diverge by greater than 20% from the benefit shares
calculated based on the original sales projections, and the district
director determines that, based on the difference between actual and
projected benefit shares, the original projections were unreliable.
The district director adjusts costs shares for each of the taxable
years under examination to conform them to the recalculated shares
of anticipated benefits.
(4) Timing of allocations. If the district director reallocates
costs under the provisions of this paragraph (f), the allocation must
be reflected for tax purposes in the year in which the costs were
incurred. When a cost sharing payment is owed by one member of a
qualified cost sharing arrangement to another member, the district
director may make appropriate allocations to reflect an arm's length
rate of interest for the time value of money, consistent with the
provisions of Sec. 1.482-2(a) (Loans or advances).
(g) Allocations of income, deductions or other tax items to reflect
transfers of intangibles (buy-in)--(1) In general. A controlled
participant that makes intangible property available to a qualified
cost sharing arrangement will be treated as having transferred
interests in such property to the other controlled participants, and
such other controlled participants must make buy-in payments to it, as
provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. If the other controlled
participants fail to make such payments, the district director may make
appropriate allocations, under the provisions of Secs. 1.482-1 and
1.482-4 through 1.482-6, to reflect an arm's length consideration for
the transferred intangible property. Further, if a group of controlled
taxpayers participates in a qualified cost sharing arrangement, any
change in the controlled participants' interests in covered
intangibles, whether by reason of entry of a new participant or
otherwise by reason of transfers (including deemed transfers) of
interests among existing participants, is a transfer
[[Page 65564]]
of intangible property, and the district director may make appropriate
allocations, under the provisions of Secs. 1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through
1.482-6, to reflect an arm's length consideration for the transfer. See
paragraphs (g) (3), (4), and (5) of this section. Paragraph (g)(6) of
this section provides rules for assigning unassigned interests under a
qualified cost sharing arrangement.
(2) Pre-existing intangibles. If a controlled participant makes
pre-existing intangible property in which it owns an interest available
to other controlled participants for purposes of research in the
intangible development area under a qualified cost sharing arrangement,
then each such other controlled participant must make a buy-in payment
to the owner. The buy-in payment by each such other controlled
participant is the arm's length charge for the use of the intangible
under the rules of Secs. 1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6,
multiplied by the controlled participant's share of reasonably
anticipated benefits (as defined in paragraph (f)(3) of this section).
A controlled participant's payment required under this paragraph (g)(2)
is deemed to be reduced to the extent of any payments owed to it under
this paragraph (g)(2) from other controlled participants. Each payment
received by a payee will be treated as coming pro rata out of payments
made by all payors. See paragraph (g)(8), Example 4, of this section.
Such payments will be treated as consideration for a transfer of an
interest in the intangible property made available to the qualified
cost sharing arrangement by the payee. Any payment to or from an
uncontrolled participant in consideration for intangible property made
available to the qualified cost sharing arrangement will be shared by
the controlled participants in accordance with their shares of
reasonably anticipated benefits (as defined in paragraph (f)(3) of this
section). A controlled participant's payment required under this
paragraph (g)(2) is deemed to be reduced by such a share of payments
owed from an uncontrolled participant to the same extent as by any
payments owed from other controlled participants under this paragraph
(g)(2). See paragraph (g)(8), Example 5, of this section.
(3) New controlled participant. If a new controlled participant
enters a qualified cost sharing arrangement and acquires any interest
in the covered intangibles, then the new participant must pay an arm's
length consideration, under the provisions of Secs. 1.482-1 and 1.482-4
through 1.482-6, for such interest to each controlled participant from
whom such interest was acquired.
(4) Controlled participant relinquishes interests. A controlled
participant in a qualified cost sharing arrangement may be deemed to
have acquired an interest in one or more covered intangibles if another
controlled participant transfers, abandons, or otherwise relinquishes
an interest under the arrangement, to the benefit of the first
participant. If such a relinquishment occurs, the participant
relinquishing the interest must receive an arm's length consideration,
under the provisions of Secs. 1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6, for
its interest. If the controlled participant that has relinquished its
interest subsequently uses that interest, then that participant must
pay an arm's length consideration, under the provisions of Secs. 1.482-
1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6, to the controlled participant that
acquired the interest.
(5) Conduct inconsistent with the terms of a cost sharing
arrangement. If, after any cost allocations authorized by paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, a controlled participant bears costs of
intangible development that over a period of years are consistently and
materially greater or lesser than its share of reasonably anticipated
benefits, then the district director may conclude that the economic
substance of the arrangement between the controlled participants is
inconsistent with the terms of the cost sharing arrangement. In such a
case, the district director may disregard such terms and impute an
agreement consistent with the controlled participants' course of
conduct, under which a controlled participant that bore a
disproportionately greater share of costs received additional interests
in covered intangibles. See Sec. 1.482-1(d)(3)(ii)(B) (Identifying
contractual terms) and Sec. 1.482- 4(f)(3)(ii) (Identification of
owner). Accordingly, that participant must receive an arm's length
payment from any controlled participant whose share of the intangible
development costs is less than its share of reasonably anticipated
benefits over time, under the provisions of Secs. 1.482-1 and 1.482-4
through 1.482-6.
(6) Failure to assign interests under a qualified cost sharing
arrangement. If a qualified cost sharing arrangement fails to assign an
interest in a covered intangible, then each controlled participant will
be deemed to hold a share in such interest equal to its share of the
costs of developing such intangible. For this purpose, if cost shares
have varied materially over the period during which such intangible was
developed, then the costs of developing the intangible must be measured
by their present discounted value as of the date when the first such
costs were incurred.
(7) Form of consideration. The consideration for an acquisition
described in this paragraph (g) may take any of the following forms:
(i) Lump sum payments. For the treatment of lump sum payments, see
Sec. 1.482-4(f)(5) (Lump sum payments);
(ii) Installment payments. Installment payments spread over the
period of use of the intangible by the transferee, with interest
calculated in accordance with Sec. 1.482-2(a) (Loans or advances); and
(iii) Royalties. Royalties or other payments contingent on the use
of the intangible by the transferee.
(8) Examples. The following examples illustrate allocations
described in this paragraph (g):
Example 1. In year one, four members of a controlled group enter
into a cost sharing arrangement to develop a commercially feasible
process for capturing energy from nuclear fusion. Based on a
reliable projection of their future benefits, each cost sharing
participant bears an equal share of the costs. The cost of
developing intangibles for each participant with respect to the
project is approximately $1 million per year. In year ten, a fifth
member of the controlled group joins the cost sharing group and
agrees to bear one-fifth of the future costs in exchange for part of
the fourth member's territory reasonably anticipated to yield
benefits amounting to one-fifth of the total benefits. The fair
market value of intangible property within the arrangement at the
time the fifth company joins the arrangement is $45 million. The new
member must pay one-fifth of that amount (that is, $9 million total)
to the fourth member from whom it acquired its interest in covered
intangibles.
Example 2. U.S. Subsidiary (USS), Foreign Subsidiary (FS) and
Foreign Parent (FP) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to develop
new products within the Group X product line. USS manufactures and
sells Group X products in North America, FS manufactures and sells
Group X products in South America, and FP manufactures and sells
Group X products in the rest of the world. USS, FS and FP project
that each will manufacture and sell a third of the Group X products
under development, and they share costs on the basis of projected
sales of manufactured products. When the new Group X products are
developed, however, USS ceases to manufacture Group X products, and
FP sells its Group X products to USS for resale in the North
American market. USS earns a return on its resale activity that is
appropriate given its function as a distributor, but does not earn a
return attributable to exploiting covered intangibles. The district
director determines that USS' share of the costs (one-third) was
greater than its share of reasonably anticipated benefits (zero) and
that it has transferred an interest in the intangibles for which it
should receive a payment from FP, whose share of the
[[Page 65565]]
intangible development costs (one-third) was less than its share of
reasonably anticipated benefits over time (two-thirds). An
allocation is made under Secs. 1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-6
from FP to USS to recognize USS' one-third interest in the
intangibles. No allocation is made from FS to USS because FS did not
exploit USS' interest in covered intangibles.
Example 3. U.S. Parent (USP), Foreign Subsidiary 1 (FS1), and
Foreign Subsidiary 2 (FS2) enter into a cost sharing arrangement to
develop a cure for the common cold. Costs are shared USP-50%, FS1-
40% and FS2-10% on the basis of projected units of cold medicine to
be produced by each. After ten years of research and development,
FS1 withdraws from the arrangement, transferring its interests in
the intangibles under development to USP in exchange for a lump sum
payment of $10 million. The district director may review this lump
sum payment, under the provisions of Sec. 1.482-4(f)(5), to ensure
that the amount is commensurate with the income attributable to the
intangibles.
Example 4. (i) Four members A, B, C, and D of a controlled group
form a cost sharing arrangement to develop the next generation
technology for their business. Based on a reliable projection of
their future benefits, the participants agree to bear shares of the
costs incurred during the term of the agreement in the following
percentages: A 40%; B 15%; C 25%; and D 20%. The arm's length
charges, under the rules of Secs. 1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through 1.482-
6, for the use of the existing intangible property they respectively
make available to the cost sharing arrangement are in the following
amounts for the taxable year: A 80X; B 40X; C 30X; and D 30X. The
provisional (before offsets) and final buy-in payments/receipts
among A, B, C, and D are shown in the table as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A B C D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments........................ <40> <21> <37.5> <30>
Receipts........................ 48 34 22.5 24
---------------------------------------
Final........................... 8 13 <15> <6>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) The first row/first column shows A's provisional buy-in
payment equal to the product of 100X (sum of 40X, 30X, and 30X) and
A's share of anticipated benefits of 40%. The second row/first
column shows A's provisional buy-in receipts equal to the sum of the
products of 80X and B's, C's, and D's anticipated benefits shares
(15%, 25%, and 20%, respectively). The other entries in the first
two rows of the table are similarly computed. The last row shows the
final buy-in receipts/payments after offsets. Thus, for the taxable
year, A and B are treated as receiving the 8X and 13X, respectively,
pro rata out of payments by C and D of 15X and 6X, respectively.
Example 5. A and B, two members of a controlled group form a
cost sharing arrangement with an unrelated third party C to develop
a new technology useable in their respective businesses. Based on a
reliable projection of their future benefits, A and B agree to bear
shares of 60% and 40%, respectively, of the costs incurred during
the term of the agreement. A also makes available its existing
technology for purposes of the research to be undertaken. The arm's
length charge, under the rules of Secs. 1.482-1 and 1.482-4 through
1.482-6, for the use of the existing technology is 100X for the
taxable year. Under its agreement with A and B, C must make a
specified cost sharing payment as well as a payment of 50X for the
taxable year on account of the pre- existing intangible property
made available to the cost sharing arrangement. B's provisional buy-
in payment (before offsets) to A for the taxable year is 40X (the
product of 100X and B's anticipated benefits share of 40%). C's
payment of 50X is shared provisionally between A and B in accordance
with their shares of reasonably anticipated benefits, 30X (50X times
60%) to A and 20X (50X times 40%) to B. B's final buy-in payment
(after offsets) is 20X (40X less 20X). A is treated as receiving the
70X total provisional payments (40X plus 30X) pro rata out of the
final payments by B and C of 20X and 50X, respectively.
(h) Character of payments made pursuant to a qualified cost sharing
arrangement--(1) In general. Payments made pursuant to a qualified cost
sharing arrangement (other than payments described in paragraph (g) of
this section) generally will be considered costs of developing
intangibles of the payor and reimbursements of the same kind of costs
of developing intangibles of the payee. For purposes of this paragraph
(h), a controlled participant's payment required under a qualified cost
sharing arrangement is deemed to be reduced to the extent of any
payments owed to it under the arrangement from other controlled or
uncontrolled participants. Each payment received by a payee will be
treated as coming pro rata out of payments made by all payors. Such
payments will be applied pro rata against deductions for the taxable
year that the payee is allowed in connection with the qualified cost
sharing arrangement. Payments received in excess of such deductions
will be treated as in consideration for use of the tangible property
made available to the qualified cost sharing arrangement by the payee.
For purposes of the research credit determined under section 41, cost
sharing payments among controlled participants will be treated as
provided for intra-group transactions in Sec. 1.41-8(e). Any payment
made or received by a taxpayer pursuant to an arrangement that the
district director determines not to be a qualified cost sharing
arrangement, or a payment made or received pursuant to paragraph (g) of
this section, will be subject to the provisions of Secs. 1.482-1 and
1.482-4 through 1.482-6. Any payment that in substance constitutes a
cost sharing payment will be treated as such for purposes of this
section, regardless of its characterization under foreign law.
(2) Examples. The following examples illustrate this paragraph (h):
Example 1. U.S. Parent (USP) and its wholly owned Foreign
Subsidiary (FS) form a cost sharing arrangement to develop a
miniature widget, the Small R. Based on a reliable projection of
their future benefits, USP agrees to bear 40% and FS to bear 60% of
the costs incurred during the term of the agreement. The principal
costs in the intangible development area are operating expenses
incurred by FS in Country Z of 100X annually, and operating expenses
incurred by USP in the United States also of 100X annually. Of the
total costs of 200X, USP's share is 80X and FS's share is 120X, so
that FS must make a payment to USP of 20X. This payment will be
treated as a reimbursement of 20X of USP's operating expenses in the
United States. Accordingly, USP's Form 1120 will reflect an 80X
deduction on account of activities performed in the United States
for purposes of allocation and apportionment of the deduction to
source. The Form 5471 for FS will reflect a 100X deduction on
account of activities performed in Country Z, and a 20X deduction on
account of activities performed in the United States.
Example 2. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that
the 100X of costs borne by USP consist of 5X of operating expenses
incurred by USP in the United States and 95X of fair market value
rental cost for a facility in the United States. The depreciation
deduction attributable to the U.S. facility is 7X. The 20X net
payment by FS to USP will first be applied in reduction pro rata of
the 5X deduction for operating expenses and the 7X depreciation
deduction attributable to the U.S. facility. The 8X remainder will
be treated as rent for the U.S. facility.
(i) Accounting requirements. The accounting requirements of this
paragraph are that the controlled
[[Page 65566]]
participants in a qualified cost sharing arrangement must use a
consistent method of accounting to measure costs and benefits, and must
translate foreign currencies on a consistent basis.
(j) Administrative requirements--(1) In general. The administrative
requirements of this paragraph consist of the documentation
requirements of paragraph (j)(2) of this section and the reporting
requirements of paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
(2) Documentation. A controlled participant must maintain
sufficient documentation to establish that the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(1) of this section have been met, as well as
the additional documentation specified in this paragraph (j)(2), and
must provide any such documentation to the Internal Revenue Service
within 30 days of a request (unless an extension is granted by the
district director). Documents necessary to establish the following must
also be maintained--
(i) The total amount of costs incurred pursuant to the arrangement;
(ii) The costs borne by each controlled participant;
(iii) A description of the method used to determine each controlled
participant's share of the intangible development costs, including the
projections used to estimate benefits, and an explanation of why that
method was selected;
(iv) The accounting method used to determine the costs and benefits
of the intangible development (including the method used to translate
foreign currencies), and, to the extent that the method materially
differs from U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, an
explanation of such material differences; and
(v) Prior research, if any, undertaken in the intangible
development area, any tangible or intangible property made available
for use in the arrangement, by each controlled participant, and any
information used to establish the value of pre-existing and covered
intangibles.
(3) Reporting requirements. A controlled participant must attach to
its U.S. income tax return a statement indicating that it is a
participant in a qualified cost sharing arrangement, and listing the
other controlled participants in the arrangement. A controlled
participant that is not required to file a U.S. income tax return must
ensure that such a statement is attached to Schedule M of any Form 5471
or to any Form 5472 filed with respect to that participant.
(k) Effective date. This section is effective for taxable years
beginning on or after January 1, 1996.
(l) Transition rule. A cost sharing arrangement will be considered
a qualified cost sharing arrangement, within the meaning of this
section, if, prior to January 1, 1996, the arrangement was a bona fide
cost sharing arrangement under the provisions of Sec. 1.482-7T (as
contained in the 26 CFR part 1 edition revised as of April 1, 1995),
but only if the arrangement is amended, if necessary, to conform with
the provisions of this section by December 31, 1996.
Sec. 1.482-7T [Removed]
Par. 4. Section 1.482-7T is removed.
PART 301--PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
Par. 5. The authority for part 301 continues to read in part as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
Par. 6. Section 301.7701-3 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to
read as follows:
Sec. 301.7701-3 Partnerships.
* * * * *
(e) Qualified cost sharing arrangements. A qualified cost sharing
arrangement that is described in Sec. 1.482-7 of this chapter and any
arrangement that is treated by the Service as a qualified cost sharing
arrangement under Sec. 1.482-7 of this chapter is not classified as a
partnership for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. See Sec. 1.482-7
of this chapter for the proper treatment of qualified cost sharing
arrangements.
PART 602--OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Par. 7. The authority citation for part 602 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
Par. 8. In Sec. 602.101, paragraph (c) is amended by adding an
entry to the table in numerical order to read as follows:
``1.482-7..................................................1545-1364''.
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: November 30, 1995.
Leslie Samuels,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 95-30617 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65832-65940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30545]
[[Page 65831]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 91, et al.
Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations
Requirements; Air Carrier and Commercial Operator Training Programs;
Final Rules
Flight Crewmember Duty Period and Flight Time Limitations and Rest
Requirements; The Age 60 Rule; Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 65832]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91, 119, 121, 125, 127, and 135
[Docket No. 28154; Amendment Nos. 91-245, 119, 121-251, 125-23, 127-45,
135-58, SFAR 50-2, SFAR 71 and SFAR 38-12]
RIN 2120-AF62
Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations
Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule requires certain commuter operators that now conduct
operations under part 135 to conduct those operations under part 121.
The commuter operators affected are those conducting scheduled
passenger-carrying operations in airplanes that have passenger-seating
configurations of 10 to 30 seats (excluding any crewmember seat) and
those conducting scheduled passenger-carrying operations in turbojet
airplanes regardless of seating configuration. The rule revises the
requirements concerning operating certificates and operations
specifications for all part 121, 125, and 135 certificate holders. The
rule also requires certain management officials for all certificate
holders under parts 121 and 135. The rule is intended to increase
safety in scheduled passenger-carrying operations and to clarify,
update, and consolidate the certification and operations requirements
for persons who transport passengers or property by air for
compensation or hire.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alberta Brown, (202) 267-8321;
Katherine Hakala, (202) 267-8166; or Dave Catey, (202) 267-8166;
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline of Final Rule
I. Introduction
II. History
III. The Problem and Related FAA Action
A. Accident Rate for Commuter Operations
B. Public Perception
C. Congressional Hearings
D. NTSB Study
E. Related FAA Action
IV. The Proposed Rule and General Description of Comments
V. Major Issues
A. General Justification
B. Applicability
C. Aircraft Certification
D. Flight Time Limits and Rest Requirements
E. Age 60 Rule
F. Dispatch System
G. Airports
H. Effective Date and Compliance Schedule
VI. Discussion of Specific Proposals
A. Part 121 Discussion
1. Subpart E--Approval of Routes: Domestic and Flag Air Carriers
2. Subpart F--Approval of Routes: Approval of Areas and Routes
for Supplemental Air Carriers and Commercial Operators
3. Subpart G--Manual Requirements
4. Subpart H--Airplane Requirements
5. Subpart I--Airplane Performance Operating Limitations
6. Subpart J--Special Airworthiness Requirements
7. Subpart K--Instrument and Equipment Requirements
8. Subpart L--Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and
Alterations
9. Subpart M--Airman and Crewmember Requirements
10. Subpart N and O--Training Program and Crewmember
Qualifications
11. Subpart P--Aircraft Dispatcher Qualifications and Duty Time
Limitations: Domestic and Flag Air Carriers
12. Subparts Q, R, and S--Flight Time Limitations and Rest
Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations
13. Subpart T--Flight Operations
14. Subpart U--Dispatching and Flight Release Rules
15. Subpart V--Records and Reports
B. Part 119-- Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial
Operators
VII. Discussion of Comments Related to Costs and Benefits
VIII. Regulatory Evaluation Summary
IX. The Amendments
Background
I. Introduction
On March 29, 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on ``Commuter
Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements''
(Notice No. 95-5; 60 FR 16230.) In Notice 95-5, the FAA proposed that
commuter operations conducted in airplanes with 10-30 passenger seats
be conducted under the domestic or flag rules of part 121 of title 14
of the Code of Federal Regulations. Currently, scheduled passenger-
carrying operations in airplanes with passenger-seating configurations
of over 30 seats or more than 7,500 pounds payload capacity are
conducted under part 121. Scheduled passenger-carrying operations in
airplanes with passenger-seating configurations of 30 seats or less and
7,500 pounds or less payload capacity are conducted under part 135.
Part 121, which provides the safety requirements for all major air
carriers (as well as for any certificate holder conducting scheduled or
nonscheduled operations with airplanes configured with more than 30
passenger seats), is generally considered to have more restrictive
requirements than part 135. The regulatory changes were introduced in
order to address the continually changing needs of the industry and to
fulfill the agency's statutory requirement. This is the final rule,
based on Notice 95-5.
II. History
Historically, the maximum certificated takeoff weight (MCTW) of an
airplane determined both an airplane's categorization and operating
requirements. Beginning in 1953, airplanes with an MCTW of 12,500
pounds or less were defined as ``small airplanes'' and were permitted
to carry fewer than 10 passengers in on-demand air taxi service. The
rules under which those operations were conducted were eventually
codified as part 135. Airplanes with an MCTW of more than 12,500 pounds
were defined as ``large airplanes,'' and most large airplanes carried
20 or more passengers in scheduled air transportation. The Civil
Aeronautics Board (CAB) used the large/small dividing line to separate
major airline companies, who were required to obtain a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the CAB in order to
operate in interstate commerce as a common carrier, from on-demand air
taxi operators, who were exempted from obtaining a CPCN.
During this time, the CAB issued only a small number of CPCN's to
major, publicly-recognized companies, such as Eastern, American, Delta,
Pan Am, TWA, etc. In contrast, on-demand air taxi operators numbered in
the thousands. These operators were typically fixed-base, usually at
small airports, and owned fewer than five airplanes. They provided on-
demand air transportation as well as other services, such as training
new pilots and selling and renting small airplanes. Typically, the air
taxi portion of such an operator's business was a small part of that
business and rarely involved any scheduled operations.
Beginning in the late 1960's, airplane manufacturers began to
design and build small airplanes, that is, less than 12,500 pounds
maximum certified takeoff weight, that were capable of carrying more
than 10 passengers, often close to 20. Some air taxi operators began to
offer services that resembled
[[Page 65833]]
the services of the major airlines, given the economic opportunity to
operate under the less restrictive requirements of part 135. Though
these scheduled commuter operators began to overtake some air taxi
operations, they still remained a small percent of the thousands of air
taxi operators.
In 1978, as a result of the Airline Deregulation Act, the airline
industry was deregulated economically and air carriers were given more
freedom to enter and exit markets without prior government economic
approval. One of the most significant effects of this deregulation was
that it allowed major carriers to eliminate service to smaller
communities, where such service proved to be uneconomical for the large
aircraft the carriers operated. Major carriers were replaced in those
communities by the commuter carriers. Under this ``hub and spoke''
system, the major part 121 air carriers provided service to the large
metropolitan airports, while the growing class of scheduled part 135
air carriers provided service between smaller communities as well as
feeder service from the smaller communities to the larger cities to
connect with the major carriers' operations. With these changes, the
traditional two categories of operations became three categories of
operations--scheduled commuter operations, traditional air taxis, and
traditional major air carriers.
Also in 1978, in response to the Airline Deregulation Act, the FAA
reissued part 135 standards to upgrade commuter and air taxi safety
requirements and make them more like part 121. At that time part 135
certificate holders were required to meet more stringent requirements
in several areas, including weather reporting, flightcrew training,
maintenance, and qualifications for management personnel.
Since 1978, the FAA has issued a number of separate rule changes to
further align part 135 safety requirements with those in part 121.
Despite this realignment, differences between the regulations still
exist. The economic incentive to operate under part 135 still exists
because the requirements in part 135 are still less restrictive than
the part 121 requirements in many instances.
For the remainder of this document the following terms are used in
the following ways. ``Commuter,'' ``commuter airline,'' and ``commuter
operator'' mean those operators conducting scheduled passenger-carrying
operations under part 135 in airplanes with a passenger-seating
capacity of 30 or fewer seats. This current use of the word
``commuter'' does not include scheduled passenger-carrying operations
conducted under part 121 in airplanes with a seating capacity of 31 to
60 seats. The term ``commuter category airplane'' used in this document
refers to airplanes type certificated in that category under part 23 in
contrast to airplanes type certificated under part 25 which are
transport category airplanes. The term ``nontransport category
airplanes'' is used for commuter category airplanes and SFAR 41 and
predecessor normal category airplanes to be operated under part 121, as
well as for some older airplanes certificated before the predecessors
of part 25 (parts 04 and 4b of the Civil Air Regulations) came into
existence. The Department of Transportation (DOT) uses the term
``commuter'' more broadly to include all scheduled passenger-carrying
operations conducted in airplanes with a passenger-seating capacity of
20 to 60 seats. (Note: The High Density Rule, 14 CFR part 93 uses
``scheduled commuters'' differently. Its meaning under that part is not
relevant to its use in this document.) The term ``regional,'' which is
used by industry to refer to short-haul, passenger-carrying, scheduled
operations conducted under part 121 or part 135, is not generally used
by the FAA.
III. The Problem and Related FAA Action
Recent part 135 commuter accidents have focused public, government,
and industry attention on the safety of commuter operations. While the
safety level of part 135 commuter operations has continued to improve,
accident data, public perception, and recent government inquiries show
a need for additional measures.
III.A. Accident Rate for Commuter Operations
The airline industry that uses airplanes with a passenger-seating
capacity of 60 or fewer seats to conduct scheduled operations under
parts 121 and 135 is an essential part of the air transportation
network in the U.S. These airlines now fly more than all airlines did
in 1958. In 1993, over 50 million passengers, 12 percent of the total
passenger flights in the country, were flown by these airlines. Half of
these passengers were flown in part 135 operations, i.e., in aircraft
with 30 or fewer seats.
Over the past two decades the safety record of part 135 commuters
has greatly improved. The accident rate per 100,000 departures in 1993
was one-fourth the accident rate in 1980. However, the accident rate
for commuter airlines operating under part 135 continues to be higher
than the rate for domestic part 121 airlines. In the past 2 years,
several commuter airline accidents occurred that attracted media and
public attention and caused government and industry officials to
scrutinize the safety system for commuter operations under part 135.
These accidents included the December 1, 1993, crash of a Jetstream
3100, operated by Express II (as Northwest Airlink), at Hibbing, MN;
the January 7, 1994, crash of a Jetstream 4100, operated by Atlantic
Coast Airlines (as United Express), at Columbus, OH; and the December
13, 1994, crash of a Jetstream 3200, operated by Flagship Airlines (as
American Eagle), at Raleigh-Durham, NC. All of these accidents involved
fatalities.
III.B. Public Perception
With the increase in the number of flights to many communities
conducted in airplanes with a seating capacity of 30 seats or less,
some members of the public are questioning whether they are receiving
an appropriate level of safety in small propeller-driven airplanes
compared to the level of safety they receive in larger aircraft. This
public concern is partly a result of the integration of commuter
carriers with major airlines under an arrangement known as code-
sharing. The term ``code-sharing'' refers to the computerized airline
reservation system that lists a commuter flight in the reservation
system under the same code used by a major carrier. A passenger who
books with a major carrier may have a leg of the flight automatically
booked with a smaller commuter affiliate of the major carrier.
With the media attention to recent commuter accidents, the
passenger may also believe that the flight involves more risk because
the smaller airplane and its operation may not have to meet the same
safety standards. Most passengers probably do not realize that some
differences in standards are necessary because of differences in the
airplane and operation and that some of the accidents that are
categorized by the media as ``commuter'' accidents occurred in flights
that were being conducted under part 121; that is, in airplanes with
over 30 passenger seats.
The differences in regulations were initially based on differences
in the types of operations and differences in the size of airplanes;
these differences in many instances still apply. But other differences,
such as certain performance and equipment requirements,
[[Page 65834]]
operational control requirements, and passenger information
requirements are not size- or operationally-based. Some differences
between the two sets of regulations must be maintained while others can
be eliminated to improve the safety of commuter operations.
III.C. Congressional Hearings
On February 9, 1994, Congress held hearings on the adequacy of
commuter airline safety regulations. The purpose of the hearings was to
determine if FAA safety regulations should be modified to establish a
single standard for all scheduled operations regardless of airplane
size. Representatives of government, industry, and the public presented
testimony. Most testimony supported the upgrading of safety
requirements.
III.D. NTSB Study
In November 1994, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
published a study on commuter airline safety. (National Transportation
Safety Board Safety Study: Commuter Airline Safety, NTSB/SS-94/02.) The
study was based on the NTSB's analysis of accident investigations and
previous studies, on a recent site survey of airline operations and
policies conducted at a representative sample of commuter airlines, and
on information obtained from a public forum on commuter airline safety
convened by the NTSB.
In the study, the NTSB found that the commuter air carrier industry
has experienced major growth in passenger traffic and changes in its
operating characteristics since the NTSB's 1980 study of the commuter
airline industry. The NTSB found that there has been a trend in the
industry toward operating larger, more sophisticated aircraft, and many
carriers have established code-sharing arrangements with major
airlines. The NTSB concluded that the regulations contained in 14 CFR
part 135 have not kept pace with changes in the industry.
As a result of the findings, the NTSB issued the following safety
recommendations to the FAA:
Revise the Federal Aviation Regulations such that all
scheduled passenger service conducted in aircraft with 20 or more
passenger seats would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of
14 CFR part 121. (A-94-191)
Revise the Federal Aviation Regulations such that all
scheduled passenger service conducted in aircraft with 10 to 19
passenger seats would be conducted in accordance with 14 CFR part 121,
or its functional equivalent, wherever possible. (A-94-192)
In the 1994 study, the NTSB examined the differences in flight
dispatch requirements between parts 121 and 135. The NTSB found that,
in the absence of support from licensed dispatch personnel, it is
difficult for a part 135 pilot to accomplish several tasks between
flights in the short periods of time available. The lack of support
might increase the risk of critical mistakes that could jeopardize the
safety of flight. As a result the NTSB issued the following
recommendation to the FAA:
Require principal operations inspectors (POI) to periodically
review air carrier flight operations policies and practices concerning
pilot tasks performed between flights to ensure that carriers provide
pilots with adequate resources (such as time and personnel) to
accomplish those tasks. (A-94-193) The FAA published all of the NTSB
recommendations in the Federal Register (59 FR 63185, December 7, 1994)
and received public comments generally supporting the expansion of the
operational rules of part 121, except for flight time limitations, to
commuter operations under part 135. Some commenters had considerable
reservations about applying certain part 121 equipment requirements to
smaller airplanes. The FAA considered these comments in developing this
rule.
III.E. Related FAA Action
In December 1994, the FAA proposed revisions to the training and
qualification requirements of certificate holders conducting commuter
operations under part 135. The proposed rule also addressed crew
resource management training for pilots, dispatchers, and flight
attendants in part 121. (59 FR 64272, December 13, 1994) [Add Final
Action]
IV. The Proposed Rule and General Description of Comments
In Notice 95-5, the FAA proposed to require that all scheduled
passenger-carrying operations in airplanes with a passenger-seating
configuration of 10 or more seats (excluding any crewmember seat) and
all scheduled operations in turbojets (regardless of the number of
seats) must be conducted under part 121. The proposal would require
certificate holders now conducting scheduled passenger-carrying
operations under part 135 in airplanes with a passenger-seating
configuration (excluding any crewmember seat) of 10 to 30 seats or in
turbojets to be recertificated and to conduct the applicable operations
in compliance with part 121 requirements. In some instances the
proposed rule revised the requirements of part 121 to make compliance
with the requirements feasible for operations in smaller, nontransport
category airplanes.
In response to Notice 95-5, the FAA has received over 3,000
comments from the public. Of these, most are solely on the issue of the
Age 60 Rule. Many of the Age 60 commenters are pilots and other
individuals who address the current rule in part 121; very few address
the specific Age 60 issue contained in this rulemaking, i.e. the
applicability of the Age 60 Rule to pilots of affected commuter
airplanes. These comments are summarized in Section V.E., The Age 60
Rule.
Approximately 200 comments were received on the substantive issues
raised by Notice 95-5. These commenters represent air carriers;
manufacturers; associations representing air carriers, manufacturers,
pilots, dispatchers, and passengers; State and local governments; the
U.S. Small Business Administration; the National Transportation Safety
Board; and individuals. While some commenters voice general support for
the goals of Notice 95-5, most raise concerns about specific proposals.
Industry commenters are particularly concerned about the costs of
complying with the proposed rule.
The FAA also conducted three public meetings on the proposed rule:
on May 18, 1995, in Anchorage, Alaska; on June 14, 1995, in Chicago,
Illinois; and on June 21, 1995, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Testimony from
the public meetings and written statements submitted at the meetings
have been included in the FAA public docket, have been considered by
the FAA in developing the final rule, and are discussed in the
following discussion of comments along with all written comments that
were submitted to the FAA docket.
In Notice 95-5, the FAA identified major issues that the agency
addressed in developing the proposal. These included applicability of
the proposal, aircraft certification issues, flight time limits, the
Age 60 Rule, use of a dispatch system, certain equipment items, and the
compliance schedule. Comments received on these major issues and the
FAA's response to these comments are discussed in Section V. Comments
received on specific proposals and the FAA's response to these comments
are discussed in Section VI. Comments specifically addressing cost
issues are discussed in Section VII. Below is a list of some of the
major commenters and their associated abbreviations. The full name of
each commenter is used when the commenter is first mentioned. In
[[Page 65835]]
subsequent discussions, the commenter's abbreviation, as shown below,
is used.
Abbreviations for Commenters
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AACA Alaska Air Carriers Association
ADF Airline Dispatchers Federation
AIA Aerospace Industries Association
ALPA Air Line Pilots Association
APA Allied Pilots Association
ASA Atlantic Southeast Airlines
GAMA General Aviation Manufacturers Association
HAI Helicopter Association International
IAPA International Airline Passengers Association
NACA National Air Carrier Association
NATA National Air Transportation Association
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
Penair Peninsula Airways
RAA Regional Airlines Association
V. Major Issues
V.A. General Justification
In Notice 95-5, the FAA justified the proposed rule on the basis of
the higher accident rate for commuter airlines. Parts of the proposed
rule were also supported by the testimony from Congressional hearings
on commuter airline safety regulations and by the NTSB study, based on
accident investigations and previous studies, which found that part 135
regulations had not kept pace with changes in the industry.
Comments: The NTSB and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)
generally support the proposal and its justification. A comment from
the International Airline Passengers Association (IAPA) supports the
rulemaking justification by stating the findings of a recently
completed IAPA study of commuter/regional airplane safety records in
the United States covering the period 1970 through March 31, 1994.
According to IAPA, during that period carriers using airplanes with 30
or fewer seats had 29 fatal accidents with 249 passenger fatalities;
over 30 seat regional carriers had 1 fatal accident with 2 passenger
fatalities; major airlines had 11 fatal domestic jet accidents with 527
passenger fatalities.
In contrast to these comments, many other commenters state that the
proposed rulemaking lacked sufficient justification. Recent accident
data, say these commenters, have shown significant reductions in
accident rates for commuters so that the difference in accident rates
for part 121 operations and part 135 commuter operations is minimal.
According to at least one of these commenters, if the accidents that
occurred in extreme environments such as Alaska are removed, the
accident rate under the two parts would be either the same or lower for
part 135 commuter operations.
According to some commenters, the recent accidents cited in Notice
95-5 were all caused by pilot error and thus would not have been
prevented by this rulemaking but could have been prevented by
improvements in training.
Some commenters state that the proposed rule is the result of
public, media, and agency overreaction to recent commuter accidents and
that both the public and the media drew inaccurate conclusions about
commuter airline safety from these accidents. According to these
commenters, instead of hastily proposing rules based on incomplete
information, the agency should have informed the public that many so-
called commuter operations are already being conducted under part 121.
Several commenters state that the proposed rule will decrease
safety because in order to avoid the proposed restrictions, certificate
holders now operating airplanes with a seating capacity of 10 to 19
passenger seats will switch to reciprocating-powered airplanes with a
passenger seating capacity of 9 or less in order to continue to operate
under part 135. Furthermore, some commenters state that if fares are
significantly increased to pay for the more restrictive requirements,
passengers may choose ground transportation, which has a much higher
accident rate.
Several commenters state that the proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on small airline operators, in some cases
forcing them to close their businesses, thus eliminating air
transportation to some locations. In addition, according to some
commenters, the proposed rule would have a negative impact on
competition, particularly in the foreign market because the cost of
U.S. manufactured airplanes would increase.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the assessment that the
proposed rule lacked sufficient justification. The FAA recognizes the
validity of some of these comments especially in regard to unintended
safety decrements if the aircraft performance portions of the proposed
rule were adopted on the schedule proposed. While the FAA recognizes
the improvements in the accident data for commuter airlines in recent
years, it intends through this rulemaking, and other related rulemaking
actions underway, to reduce the accident rate even further.
Several commenters have questioned the need for a rule that would
move affected commuters into part 121 domestic or flag operations. For
instance two commenters argue that a dispatch system would not have
prevented the three accidents cited by the FAA in the NPRM. It would be
a mistake to assume that the FAA is basing this final rule on just
those three accidents. Similarly, it would be a mistake to conclude
that the FAA is justifying this rule on merely ``perceptions'' of a
problem. Those accidents were catalysts for the Government to focus on
the differences in the part 121 accident rate and the accident rate for
10- to 30-seat part 135 commuters. Over the next 15 years affected
commuters are expected to have had 67 more accidents than they would
have had if the accident rate for part 135 affected commuters were the
same as that for part 121 scheduled operators. The FAA believes that
adoption of this rule will significantly close the accident rate gap
over time.
The FAA believes that the part 121 regulatory scheme for scheduled
operations is more appropriate for the 10- to 30-seat scheduled
operations. The added safety features and requirements in part 121
domestic/flag rules, including the dispatcher system, will increase
safety for the affected commuters. Because most accidents are caused by
human errors, rules such as the part 121 training rules and the
dispatcher system rules are some of the most valuable tools in reducing
the number of these kinds of accidents. Rules that most directly relate
to preventing accidents caused by human errors are being imposed on the
affected commuters on a faster schedule than many of the other rules
(e.g., aircraft performance and certain equipment retrofits). It can be
reasonably anticipated that applying part 121 operating rules,
including these two groups of rules, can begin to immediately and
significantly reduce the accident rate for affected commuters. For
instance, the FAA anticipates that requiring operators to have someone
(i.e., a certificated dispatcher) double check the work of the pilot
and provide the flight crew with updates on weather and alternate
airports can reduce some human factor errors. The FAA believes that if
the flight crew is subjected to more stringent flight and duty
safeguards (either the current part 121 domestic flight and duty rules
or the rules in a soon to be issued NPRM in which the FAA will propose
to overhaul all the flight and duty regulations), the dangers of
fatigue causing a human factors error will be reduced. Enhanced part
121 training (which is being required of
[[Page 65836]]
affected commuters in an associated final rule) will also reduce some
human factor errors.
It is critically important to impose the bulk of the part 121
regulatory scheme on affected commuters because the absence of any
significant portion of that regulatory scheme may lessen the
effectiveness of the rest of the safety features in the part 121
regulatory scheme. Even the best trained and well rested pilot is a
human being and, therefore, subject to making errors. With a dispatcher
system, the chances of pilot miscalculations or oversights could be
reduced. Moreover, a dispatcher can assist the flight crew in making
enroute plans for an alternate airport (which might be necessary due to
weather problems, air traffic control problems, airplane equipment
problems, fuel problems, etc.) while the crew focuses on flying the
airplane. It is reasonable to conclude that the accident rate for
affected commuters can be reduced to a level closer to that of current
part 121 domestic operations by eliminating most of the regulatory
differences that the two different regulatory schemes allowed.
While major air carriers may require commuter affiliates to follow
certain part 121 standards, and in some cases even exceed some part 121
standards, no part 135 commuter operator currently operates under part
121 operations specifications or totally complies with all part 121
standards (e.g., many part 121 requirements are based on the assumption
that transport category airplanes are operated). Most importantly, no
part 135 commuter is required by current FAA regulation to comply with
part 121 requirements.
Recent accidents brought to public attention the differences
between part 135 and part 121 and the lack of continuing justification
for these differences. As Notice 95-5 pointed out, the distinction
between these two types of operations was, in the beginning, an obvious
necessity. Major air carriers engaged in public transportation were
entirely different from the small on-demand, air taxi operator. But
with the development and growth of what has come to be known as
commuter service, the line between the two has blurred. Certain
segments of the commuter industry have continued to develop commuter
category airplanes, holding the line at 19 passenger seats in order to
stay within the limits of the less restrictive airworthiness
regulations for nontransport category aircraft. This has created the
potential for the further development of commuter airplanes
specifically designed to stay within the limits of the less restrictive
regulations while at the same time becoming as sophisticated or more
sophisticated in technology than some transport category airplanes
operated by the major carriers. With hindsight, the FAA may not have
drawn the line as it currently is but would have attempted from the
start to maintain one set of requirements.
Until now the line between the requirements has not created a
safety concern, but as the commuter market grows, the disparity between
the two sets of requirements is of more concern. There is no longer any
justification for maintaining two sets of standards for scheduled
operations in airplanes with a passenger-seating configuration of 10 or
more seats. When a passenger pays for a ticket on an FAA certificated
commuter operation, that passenger must be assured of the highest
possible level of safety.
With respect to commenters concerns that the proposed rules will
actually decrease safety because certificate holders will switch to
reciprocating-powered airplanes, the FAA has modified the proposal,
especially in regard to the schedule for some airplanes to meet part
121 airplane performance criteria, to allow operators sufficient time
to build up capital or credit to make changes to the existing fleet or
to purchase new airplanes that meet the higher performance standards.
The FAA does not want to move so fast as to force operators to use
airplanes that have even higher accident rates (i.e., airplanes with 9
or fewer seats).
The FAA finds that safety and the public interest require extending
the proposed compliance dates for imposing part 121 performance
criteria requirements and some equipment requirements until it is
economically feasible for operators of 10- to 19-seat airplanes to
acquire or lease replacement aircraft. The FAA has analyzed the
situation and has concluded that many operators of 10-15 seat aircraft
would replace those aircraft with 9 or fewer seat aircraft to avoid the
sudden imposition of large costs on their current fleets. Without the
FAA modifying its proposal with regard to airplane performance
requirements, many airplanes would be eliminated from scheduled service
at the first compliance date (i.e., 15 months after publication of the
final rule) and operators of other airplanes would have to offload
passenger seats, thereby causing the economic and safety impacts
discussed previously. This modification would be consistent with the
National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) recommendation for
airplanes with 10- to 19-seats in scheduled service. For those
aircraft, the NTSB recommended that scheduled passenger service be
conducted in accordance with part 121 ``* * * or its functional
equivalent, wherever possible''.
Clearly the NTSB used the phrase ``wherever possible'' because it
knew that it was not possible for a substantial portion of the 10- to
19-seat airplane fleet to meet all of the requirements of part 121. The
NTSB carefully chose its words when it made its recommendations for 10-
19 seat airplanes used in scheduled service. The NTSB recognized that
the FAA necessarily had to exercise judgment about which part 121
regulations to impose, which regulations could be modified to achieve
functional equivalency, and which regulations simply might not be
possible.
In regard to comments that higher fares resulting from this
rulemaking will cause passengers to switch to less safe modes of
transportation, it has been the FAA's observation that passengers are
usually willing to pay for safety. While some may choose to drive
rather than fly, that has not stopped the airlines in the past from
raising fares. It should also be noted here that the public tolerates a
higher accident rate for automobile travel than for airplane travel. If
air transportation accident rates approached that of ground travel,
most Americans would stop flying. The air transportation industry is
very aware of this; it is the main reason that air transportation is
safe. As one commenter points out, the recent commuter accidents caused
a 12 percent drop in passengers on commuter airlines. That is a
significant cost to industry.
The FAA has carefully considered the economic impact of the
proposed regulations and has reviewed and revised its analysis in light
of the comments received. (See Section VIII.) The agency has determined
that the impact of the final rule should not disrupt air transportation
service and that few, if any, certificate holders will discontinue
their commuter operations. During the transition period, the FAA will
work with certificate holders who are switching to part 121
requirements to make the switch as smooth as possible. It should also
be noted that the compliance schedule provides for a gradual updating
of equipment and operations and will allow certificate holders the
choice of upgrading or phasing out airplanes that cannot be upgraded
without significant cost.
Some may argue that there may still be limited circumstances, even
with these changes, where the effects of this rule (and related
rulemakings on
[[Page 65837]]
upgraded training requirements and pilot flight time and duty
limitations) will be so burdensome as to lead to adverse safety
consequences and/or a loss of critical air service. This is neither
FAA's intention nor its expectation. Indeed, the entire premise of this
rulemaking is that safety standards can and must be improved for the
benefit of passengers in 10-30 passenger seat aircraft in scheduled
service.
Nevertheless, there is in place in 14 CFR 11.25 a process for
requesting and granting exemptions from regulatory requirements,
including those adopted here. As with any request for exemption, of
course, an applicant would have to demonstrate that the public interest
justifies such an exemption. In this case, an applicant could show, for
example, that it is unable to comply with a particular provision or a
particular schedule date due to circumstances beyond its reasonable
control (rather than its own failure to act in a timely or prudent
manner), that there is convincing evidence that alternative service is
unavailable to the public, and that the carrier would be able to
maintain an adequate level of safety during the period of the requested
exemption.
We would expect that any exemption from this rule would be for a
limited period only, such as the time required for delivery of a piece
of equipment that has been ordered. Our goal would be to permit the air
carrier to come into compliance with the rule in an orderly manner, and
not simply to delay or avoid the cost of compliance.
The FAA considers this rulemaking a positive step towards promoting
air transportation by renewing confidence in commuter operations. Most
importantly, this rulemaking should reduce the accident rate of the
affected commuters to a rate that is closer to that of current part 121
domestic operators.
This rulemaking is consistent with the FAA's obligation in
accordance with section 44701(d) of Title 49 of the U.S. Code that when
prescribing a regulation or standard to promote safety or to establish
minimum safety standards, the Administrator shall consider the duty of
an air carrier to provide service with the highest possible degree of
safety in the public interest. The intent of this rulemaking is to
provide the highest possible degree of safety to affected commuter
operations.
V.B. Applicability
The FAA proposed that part 121 requirements would apply to all
scheduled passenger-carrying operations for compensation or hire in
airplanes with a passenger-seating configuration of 10 or more seats
and to all scheduled passenger-carrying operations for compensation or
hire in turbojet-powered airplanes regardless of seating capacity.
(Throughout the rest of this document these certificate holders are
referred to as the ``affected certificate holders'' or the ``affected
commuters.'') Under the proposal, scheduled passenger-carrying
operations in non-turbojet airplanes with 9 or fewer passenger seats,
on-demand operations with airplanes with 30 or fewer passenger seats,
operations in single-engine airplanes, and operations in rotorcraft
would continue to be under part 135.
The proposed rule would also have eliminated the frequency of
operations test of five round trips per week which allowed some part
135 scheduled operations to be conducted under the on-demand rules of
part 135.
Comments: While no commenters specifically object to applying part
121 requirements to commuter operations in airplanes of 20 to 30
passenger seats, several commenters, many of them small part 135
certificate holders, object to applying part 121 requirements to
commuter operations in airplanes of 10 to 19 passenger seats. According
to these commenters, the FAA did not sufficiently justify imposing the
more restrictive part 121 requirements on operations in these size
airplanes and the small certificate holders of these airplanes would
not be able to meet the economic burden of the proposal. A few
certificate holders state that if the regulations are implemented as
proposed they would either have to downgrade their airplanes, reduce
the number of passenger seats, or terminate certain services. This is
especially the case for small fixed-based certificate holders, who
conduct mostly on-demand service with some scheduled service, and for
certificate holders who service remote areas such as parts of Alaska,
Hawaii, or the islands of Samoa.
Commenters also state that the burden is greater for certificate
holders not affiliated with a major airline and that drawing the line
at 10 or more includes many small, independent certificate holders.
According to commenters, these certificate holders provide a different
kind of service from what the larger commuter operators provide.
One commenter, IAPA, states that part 121 requirements should apply
to all scheduled passenger-carrying operations, no matter how many
seats are on the airplane. According to this commenter, by leaving out
the under 10-seat aircraft from the rulemaking, passengers would be
exposed to travel on the least safe aircraft operating in scheduled
passenger transportation. According to the commenter, most under 10-
seat aircraft are piston-engined, with a lower level of engine
reliability and performance. The aircraft are frequently operated in
harsh environments thereby exposing passengers to higher risks.
Many of the commenters who object to the applicability of part 121
to aircraft with 10 to 19 passenger seats, also object to the
definition of ``scheduled'' in proposed Sec. 119.3. According to these
commenters, the effect of the current description in SFAR 38-2 of
commuter air carriers that includes 5 round trips per week should not
be changed. Apparently some small certificate holders that conduct
mostly on-demand service also provide one or two scheduled service
flights per week. According to these commenters, if they have to
upgrade the airplanes and operations to part 121 to conduct these
scheduled flights, they will downgrade the airplanes or terminate the
service. The commenters state that they cannot afford to comply with
part 121, that the service they provide offers one-of-a-kind service to
remote places or resorts, and that in some instances there is no ground
transportation to these locations.
Several on-demand operators and the National Air Transportation
Association (NATA) comment that the FAA should not revise part 135 on-
demand requirements either at this time or at any time. These
commenters are responding to a statement in Notice 95-5 that additional
standards for on-demand air taxi operations may be considered in the
future.
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) objects to
including all scheduled passenger-carrying operations in turbojets
under part 121 regardless of the number of passengers. While GAMA
agrees with the FAA's assumption that no turbojets are being used in
regularly scheduled part 135 operations, it objects to the
applicability because the FAA presented no technical justification for
the proposal. GAMA recommends allowing turbojets with a passenger-
seating capacity of 9 or less to operate under part 135. Aerospace
Industries Association (AIA) also objects that no rationale was
presented for including turbojets. AIA states that the proposed rule
offers an unfair competitive advantage for normal category turboprops
against jets with a passenger-seating capacity of 9 or less. United
West Airlines states that it is a small operation with two jets, that
it costs $70,000 a year to train its four pilots, and that the proposed
rule will put the airline out of business.
[[Page 65838]]
Two individual commenters recommend that ``any scheduled operation
with airplanes seating more than 9 passengers but less than 19
passengers'' be operated under supplemental rules when that scheduled
operation is a code-sharing arrangement with another part 121 scheduled
carrier.
FAA Response: The so-called ``frequency of operation'' provision in
the SFAR 38-2 definition of commuter air carrier does not exist for
current part 121 operations. Affected commuters being upgraded to part
121 by this rule will be required to conduct all of their scheduled
operations under part 121 regardless of the number of scheduled
operations. However, the FAA has decided to retain the frequency of
operations distinction for those operations conducted in airplanes with
a passenger-seating configuration of 9 seats or less by revising the
definitions of ``commuter operation'' and ``on demand operation'' in
Sec. 119.3. Therefore, scheduled operations in airplanes with a
passenger-seating configuration of 9 or less (except turbojets) and
conducted on a particular route with a frequency of fewer than five
round trips per week (regardless of whether one or more airplanes are
used on the route) would be conducted under the requirements applicable
to on-demand operations.
The FAA believes that, because of the nature of the operation in
which small turbojets, which are type certificated under part 25, are
used (e.g., transoceanic, long range, international, etc.), they
approximate the operations of larger air carriers. For example, part
135 contains no requirements for long-range navigational equipment or
long-range fuel considerations. In an effort to increase the safety for
passengers carried in those kinds of operations, the FAA has determined
that any scheduled operations of turbojet airplanes should be conducted
under part 121.
The FAA disagrees with commenters who suggest that commuter
operations in code-sharing arrangements should be conducted under the
rules for supplemental operations. Code-sharing, although it may affect
passengers' perceptions, is a business/marketing arrangement and is not
the basis for an FAA regulatory scheme. Scheduled operations in
airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats should come under part 121
domestic or flag, as appropriate, not under supplemental rules.
The only operators who currently operate under part 135 on-demand
rules that would be required to conduct their operations under part 121
scheduled rules are those who are included because, as discussed above,
part 121 does not contain a frequency of operation provision. If
circumstances in the future necessitate a change to these rules,
commenters will have an opportunity to comment on any proposed changes.
Air Tour Industry Comments: Several comments were received from air
tour operators in the State of Nevada and the vicinity of the Grand
Canyon. Some of these certificate holders would be affected by the
rulemaking because they operate nontransport category airplanes of 10
to 19 seats and because they provide point-to-point service; for
example, from Las Vegas to Grand Canyon Airport even though the flights
are exclusively marketed as sightseeing and not point-to-point travel.
Despite the fact that they technically fall into the category of a
commuter operator, these commenters claim that they are more like an
on-demand operator and that the proposed rule would penalize them for
using larger, safer airplanes than their competitors. One of these
commenters states that it does not fly city to city, but flies
regularly scheduled flights that take off and land at the same airport.
This operator states that, because of the nature of the operation and
because of the proposed definition changes, it would be required to
comply as a scheduled operator.
According to the commenters, since they have upgraded from 6- to 9-
seat airplanes to 19-seat airplanes, they have been required to install
ground proximity warning systems (GPWS), traffic alert and collision
avoidance systems (TCAS), cockpit voice recorders (CVR), and flight
data recorders (FDR), while their competitors have not been burdened by
these costs. According to some of these commenters, this equipment is
not beneficial in their operating environment because they typically
fly in VFR conditions on short-range flights of an hour or less.
The commenters complain that if the proposed rule is implemented,
they will be forced to replace the turboprop airplanes with smaller
reciprocating-powered planes and will thereby lose some significant
safety benefits such as the following:
The two-pilot crew requirement with captains required to
hold an Air Transport Pilot rating.
Aircraft certificated to higher levels of aircraft
performance.
Aircraft maintenance procedures under the more
comprehensive Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program.
Safety equipment such as GPWS, TCAS, CVR, and weather
radar.
One commenter lists some of the more ``onerous'' proposed
requirements:
``Ditchable'' exits in case of water landings.
Emergency floor path exits.
Third attitude indicator (in aircraft flown in daylight
under visual flight rules).
Portable protective breathing equipment (PBE).
A commenter points out that the new aircraft performance
requirements would limit maximum operating weight at Grand Canyon due
to the high altitude.
According to these commenters, switching to smaller airplanes will
increase air traffic congestion in the Grand Canyon area, decrease
safety for passengers, and double or triple noise levels.
According to one commenter, these certificate holders do not have
code-sharing partners and while these certificate holders sometimes
provide point-to-point service, the flights are typically part of an
all-inclusive tour package which includes ground transfers to Las Vegas
hotels, sightseeing flights to the Grand Canyon, and motor coach tours
of the Grand Canyon. This is totally unlike typical commuter
operations.
Another commenter, however, says that at least one of the air tour
operators does use code-sharing with a major carrier and that the
offering of its scheduled flights is available by referencing airline
computers all over the world.
Some of the commenters cite an NTSB report (``Safety of the Air
Tour Industry in the United States,'' June 1, 1995) which states that
the implementation of SFAR 50-2 has created a safe operating
environment for air tour operators over the Grand Canyon. One commenter
quotes NTSB as saying, ``The level of safety of air tour operations
could be improved by creating a national standard for air tour
operations that contains definitions specific to the air tour industry
and specific requirements, including unique operations specifications,
to accommodate localized unique conditions, similar to the special
conditions contained in SFAR 50-2.''
One commenter states that his company recruits retired airline
pilots to provide a high level of experience and stability to the
flightcrews.
The Clark County Board of Aviation is concerned that the proposed
rule could be devastating to individual certificate holders and
adversely affect the vitality of the air tour industry in Southern
Nevada.
[[Page 65839]]
The Grand Canyon Air Tour Council states that the proposed expanded
definition of ``scheduled operations'' is the problem and that the
definition was changed with no satisfactory explanation or
justification.
The Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Nevada testified at the
public meeting held in Las Vegas that compliance would affect a ``$250
million industry that we have worked hard to develop.''
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that air tour operations are
totally unlike commuter operations. Much of an air tour flight is like
much of a commuter flight. If an air tour operator is conducting
scheduled operations, as defined in Sec. 119.3, in airplanes with a
passenger-seating configuration of 10 or more, it must comply with part
121 domestic or flag requirements, as applicable. This includes
operators who fly from and return to the same point on a scheduled
basis.
The FAA agrees that certain aspects of air tour operations make
them appear to be unlike commuter operations. For example, portions of
air tour flights are at lower altitudes, typically over rugged and
remote terrain, and often in airspace that is congested with other
sightseeing aircraft. The FAA has begun an air tour industry project to
study the implications of these differences to safety and to develop
regulations, as necessary, to address specific features of air tour
operations. If regulations are implemented as a result of the project,
they would be in addition to current regulations, as is SFAR 50-2 which
prescribes requirements for special conditions relating to flights over
the Grand Canyon. The FAA project will consider the recent NTSB study
cited by commenters. Because certain part 121 and 135 provisions are
being recodified into part 119, SFAR 50-2 and SFAR 71 are being updated
to conform to this rulemaking.
Alaskan Comments: Several comments were received from certificate
holders in Alaska, Alaska government agencies, and others interested in
how the proposal will affect Alaskan operations. Currently Alaskan
certificate holders conducting scheduled operations in airplanes of 10
to 30 seats comply with part 135. The regulations allow them not to
comply with flight time limitations for scheduled operations
(Sec. 135.261(b) and (c)) and instead allow them to follow the
regulations for on-demand operations. Alaskan certificate holders using
airplanes of more than 30 seats must comply with part 121 supplemental
requirements for nonscheduled flights and flag requirements for
international and intra-Alaska scheduled operations. Notice No. 95-5
proposed no exceptions for Alaska. Certificate holders whose operations
fit the applicability for scheduled operations for airplanes of 10 or
more seats would be required to comply with part 121 domestic
requirements. International operations would follow flag requirements
of part 121 and charter operations would follow supplemental
requirements of part 121. Alaskan operators currently operating under
part 121 flag rules would have to operate under part 121 domestic rules
except for those operations that meet the definition of flag operations
in proposed Sec. 119.3.
The basic thrust of the comments is that the Alaska environment is
unique and that requiring Alaskan commuter operators to comply with
part 121 requirements would be devastating to certain certificate
holders in Alaska and therefore to certain segments of air
transportation. Furthermore commenters point out that most air
transportation in Alaska is conducted in small reciprocating-powered
airplanes with passenger-seating capacities of under 10 seats.
Therefore, the proposed rule would not have a significant effect on air
transportation safety in Alaska and would impose an economic burden on
a few certificate holders who provide upgraded, i.e., safer, service.
According to commenters, the accident rate for airplanes with under 10
seats is much higher than for turbine-powered airplanes with 19 seats.
(Accident data analyzed by the FAA verifies that, unlike the rest of
the nation, the part of the commuter fleet in Alaska involved in
accidents contains a large proportion of under-10-seat aircraft.)
Peninsula Airways (Penair), as well as other commenters, states
that characteristics of Alaska make commuter operations in the State
unlike those in other parts of the country. In particular flights are
conducted in the same time zone, pilots do not have long commutes to
their jobs, flights are not usually conducted between 9 p.m. and 7
a.m., and operations subject to Air Traffic Control (ATC) are not in
congested airspace. This rationale is primarily in defense of using the
flight time limit requirements of part 135 nonscheduled operations.
Several commenters emphasize the absolute necessity of air travel
in Alaska where many of the towns and villages are not accessible by
road. They say that Alaskans are dependent on air transportation and
the cost of that transportation must remain affordable. High cost items
in the proposal, such as the possible need to upgrade airports, the use
of a dispatch system, the various equipment requirements, and certain
performance requirements, would boost the fares to levels that many
residents of Alaska could not afford. The State of Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities states that ``the proposed air
carrier and airport regulations could devastate Alaska's heavily
aviation dependent economy.''
The Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA) states that the proposed
rule would end the growth of the 10- to 19-seat airplane and would
increase fares by 67 to 100 percent. The proposed airport legislation
is expected to cost the state $100 million. AACA states that the
proposed rule would directly affect only 15 certificate holders in
Alaska. Two-thirds of the scheduled air carriers use aircraft with a
seating capacity of 10 seats or less.
ERA Aviation, which currently operates under part 121 flag rules,
objects to the proposal to operate as domestic/supplemental. It
operates over 100 aircraft, fixed and rotary wing, nationally and
internationally. The commenter states that for years Alaska part 121
operators have been operating under flag rules, both for scheduled and
nonscheduled operations. This has allowed increased flexibility in crew
scheduling, which is necessary because of the length of Alaska routes,
the lack of facilities in remote locations, and the lack of road
networks or other alternate forms of transportation to outlying
communities. Section 119.21 would require these carriers to operate
under domestic rules, which would decrease crew scheduling flexibility,
add substantially to costs, derogate safety, and probably result in the
elimination of vital air transportation services to some outlying
communities. The commenter says there is no safety justification for
such a change because Alaska part 121 operators have established an
excellent safety record under existing rules. They say that, at the
very least, Alaska carriers currently operating under flag rules should
be allowed to continue to operate under flag rules for both scheduled
and nonscheduled operations.
A part of the proposal that would have affected several Alaskan
certificate holders is the proposal that single-engine airplanes with
10 passenger seats now operating scheduled flights under part 135 would
in effect have to remove a seat in order to continue operating in
scheduled service under part 135. Single-engine airplanes are
ineligible for operation under part 121. The only 10-seat single-engine
airplane model involved is the single-engine de Haviland DHC-3 Otter
(not to be confused with the twin-engine de Haviland DHC-6 Twin Otter
mentioned
[[Page 65840]]
elsewhere in this notice). According to AACA and other commenters,
there is no possible safety benefit in taking a seat out of an
airplane, but the cost to certificate holders who want to continue to
use these airplanes in scheduled operations will be significant.
NATA comments that no accident involving the Otter would have been
prevented by limiting the seating to 9 passengers. Furthermore,
according to the commenter, the FAA cost on this issue is another
example of gross underestimation; actual costs will be 15 times higher
(almost $22,000 per aircraft). The City and Bureau of Juneau opposes
the proposal to remove a seat from the 10-seat airplanes so that they
can operate under part 135. This commenter notes that there will be
additional flights, additional noise, and additional congestion on the
water and in the air. It notes that it is incomprehensible how the
reduction of one seat from the Otter will provide an additional level
of safety. Wings of Alaska comments that the most cost-efficient
floatplane used in southeast Alaska is the single-engine DHC-3 Otter.
Because there is no cost-effective replacement aircraft available for
float operations that offers the same capacity as the Otter, replacing
them is not an option. Wings states that it operates the Otter about 6
months a year. Four communities that do not have runways receive daily
service. Wings purchased five 10-seat Otters in '92-93 to improve
service to a wilderness sports facility, substantially reducing noise
by reducing the number of flights by 50%. Wings notes that considering
initial operating experience (IOE) and route check requirements, it is
being operated at a higher level of safety than the 10 seat, on-demand
aircraft allowed under the rule to be operated in part 135. Wings
estimates that the removal of one seat would have cost them $85,000 in
1994. Wings asks that the Cessna Caravan and the Cessna Grand Caravan
also be allowed to operate with 10 seats. AACA comments that Ketchikan
Air Service, Taquan Air Service, and Wings of Alaska together operate
12 Otters in southeastern Alaska.
The NTSB comments that it intentionally excluded airlines that
operate exclusively in Alaska from its study of commuter airline safety
because of the unique characteristics of the environment in Alaska. The
NTSB currently is conducting a study of commercial Alaska aviation
including commuter airlines. The NTSB held two public meetings in
Alaska during June 1995 and visited a number of scheduled and
nonscheduled part 135 certificate holders to collect information for
the study. The NTSB intends to compare flying operations in Alaska with
the rest of the U.S. The study is scheduled for completion in 1995.
Several other commenters mention the study and suggest that the FAA
should wait until the study is completed before making any changes to
Alaskan regulations.
ALPA, GAMA, and other commenters state that safety issues are the
same in or out of Alaska and that, therefore, Alaska should not be
given a blanket exemption from the rulemaking. ALPA and GAMA state that
Alaskan certificate holders, as well as certificate holders in other
parts of the country, may need to be exempted from certain requirements
that are not applicable to the type of operations being conducted and
should go through the standard exemption request procedures in such
cases.
One comment from an individual pilot in Alaska states that the
schedule he flies of 14 days on and 14 days off is exhausting, and that
even though he gets 10 hours of rest in each 24 hours, it is not enough
over a 14-day period. He is in favor of the proposed flight time limit
changes.
Some Alaskan certificate holders comment that they rely on
experienced pilots who are familiar with the particular demands of
Alaskan operations. Penair states that 10 percent of its pilots are age
60 or over and that 20 percent are over age 52.
Commenters who oppose the rule suggest either exempting Alaska
altogether, not including the 10-to-19 seat airplanes in the rule, or
allowing under-19-seat airplanes to be covered under the supplemental
rules of part 121 rather than the domestic rules.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters who state that
safety issues are the same in or out of Alaska. The FAA has
specifically considered the implications of the proposal on Alaska
given its unique characteristics and has determined that the rules
should apply to Alaska as proposed. While the NTSB comment on Notice
95-5 states that the NTSB excluded Alaska from its safety study on
commuter airline safety, the NTSB states in the report that its
findings from the information obtained in the course of the study
``apply to operations in Alaska as well as the other 49 states and U.S.
Territories.'' (``Commuter Airline Safety,'' NTSB/SS-94/02). Therefore,
this final rule does not provide a blanket exemption for Alaska.
In response to the single-engine airplane issue, the FAA has
decided to allow an exception to continue. Currently, several part 135
certificate holders conduct scheduled passenger-carrying operations in
single-engine airplanes type certificated with two pilot seats in the
``cockpit'' and 9 passenger seats in the ``cabin.'' Some certificate
holders are authorized to conduct scheduled operations in that
airplane, the DHC-3 Otter, under daytime VFR, and carry a tenth
passenger in the right-hand pilot seat. In Notice 95-5, the FAA
proposed to limit all scheduled operations of single-engine airplanes
to the carriage of nine passengers, under all conditions. (60 FR 16235,
16273) The FAA has decided to allow the current practice to continue
for operators who currently conduct single-engine operations under
daytime VFR with a tenth passenger.
Comments on Exemptions/Deviations/Waivers: Currently some
certificate holders operating under part 135 that will be affected by
this rulemaking have obtained exemptions, deviations, and waivers from
certain part 135 requirements.
AACA states that AACA has held an exemption on behalf of its
members allowing removal and installation of aircraft seats by certain
pilots and trained ground personnel under an FAA-approved program. The
commenter states that it is unclear whether or not aircraft operated
previously under part 135 in Alaska would be allowed to continue this
seat removal and installation under part 121 with an appropriate
exemption. AACA states that taking away this option would significantly
increase air carriers' costs and diminish their flexibility to utilize
aircraft in ``combi'' (combination cargo/passenger) configurations.
AACA recommends that all exemptions, deviations, or waivers held by a
part 135 operator automatically be carried over into its part 121
operation. As presently written, Notice 95-5 would require compliance
with part 121 first, and only then would the FAA evaluate requests for
exemptions to part 121 rules. This places additional and unwarranted
operational costs on air carriers transitioning to part 121.
FAA Response: The specific exemption referred to by the AACA
applies only to operations with airplanes with a passenger-seating
configuration of 9 or less, and therefore is not affected by this
rulemaking.
However, exemptions issued for operations under part 135 do not
automatically continue in effect for operations under part 121.
Therefore, affected commuters who will in the future be operating under
part 121 must reapply for any exemptions they believe should apply to
their part 121 operations after the compliance date of this rule. Also,
general exemptions issued to present part 121 operators will
[[Page 65841]]
not apply automatically to new part 121 operators so any new part 121
operator will have to apply to be included in these existing
exemptions.
V.C. Aircraft Certification
The proposed rule would amend part 121 to require each 10- to 19-
passenger seat airplane that is to be operated in scheduled operations
and for which an application for type certification is made after March
24, 1995, to be type certificated in the transport category. Affected
commuter airplanes are type certificated under the requirements of part
23.
In Notice 95-5 the FAA stated its intent to review the standards of
parts 23 and 25 to see if the level of safety intended by part 25 could
be achieved for those airplanes with a passenger-seating configuration
of 19 or less through compliance with a particular standard of part 23
or another standard, in lieu of the corresponding standard of part 25.
On completion of that review the FAA stated its intent in future
rulemaking to consider amending part 25 as necessary to accommodate
type certification in the transport category of certain types of
airplanes previously type certificated in the commuter category.
The FAA also proposed that airplanes configured with 10 to 19
passenger seats already in service or manufactured in the future under
an already existing part 23 commuter category type certificate would
have to comply by specified compliance dates with certain performance
and equipment requirements in part 121. These performance and equipment
requirements are discussed later in this preamble.
In Notice 95-5 the FAA included a table that set out a list of
potential modifications that were being considered for application to
airplanes having a passenger-seating configuration of 10-19 seats that
were type certificated in the commuter category (or a predecessor) if
the airplanes are to be used in scheduled operations under part 121.
The table included a column that indicated that for 12 of the 38 issues
addressed, the FAA had determined that any required upgrade should
apply only to airplanes manufactured under a type certificate for which
application is made after March 24, 1995. Since these 12 issues will be
the subject of a future NPRM, the FAA is not addressing specific
comments on the substance or cost of these issues in this document.
Comments: ALPA fully supports the proposal to require newly-
designed airplanes to comply with the standards of part 25 and also
supports continued use of commuter category airplanes. The commenter
does not, however, concur that airplanes type certificated under part
23 normal category (i.e., pre-commuter category) should be permitted to
remain in operation with more than 10 passenger seats, even in non-air
carrier service. ALPA appears to base its position on differences in
performance requirements between commuter category and the predecessor
normal category standards.
American Eagle supports the proposed rulemaking and states that,
``while there may be limited circumstances when aircraft design and/or
manufacture may preclude or delay compliance with FAR part 121 or FAR
part 25, cost and weight considerations should not be an acceptable
barrier to the increase in safety which is derived from applying the
higher standards of aircraft airworthiness, airline operations and
passenger safety which those regulations provide.''
In contrast, six other commenters do not believe that any
propeller-driven airplanes with 10 to 19 passenger seats should be
required to meet the transport category standards of part 25. Although
the commenters' reasons vary, the comments focus on three basic issues:
(1) Commuter category standards are appropriate for airplanes of this
class; (2) there is no evidence that safety would be enhanced by
requiring future airplanes to comply with part 25; and (3) the cost of
complying with part 25 would be prohibitive.
Similar comments concerning recertification of existing part 23
airplanes under part 25 were also offered, apparently under the
misunderstanding that airplanes already type certificated, or
derivatives of those airplanes, would have to be recertificated under
part 25.
Some commenters believe that the airplane certification issue is of
such magnitude that it should be held in abeyance for a separate future
rulemaking program. In this regard, the commenters assert that
extensive changes to part 25 would be needed to accommodate the
airplanes otherwise certifiable under part 23 commuter category and
that those changes would entail a considerable expenditure of FAA
resources. They further believe that any such changes should be subject
to harmonization with corresponding standards of the European Joint
Aviation Requirements (JAR).
Several commenters cite the FAA's 1977 proposal to require all
airplanes used in air carrier service to meet part 25 transport
category standards. That proposal was later withdrawn. According to
commenters, the part 23 standards of that era were considerably
different from those of today's part 23 commuter category. The level of
safety expected by the public today is much greater than that tolerated
in 1977.
A number of other commenters address the proposed retrofitting of
existing part 23 normal and commuter category airplanes to meet certain
part 25 standards. Those comments are addressed in the section-by-
section portion of this preamble (Section VI).
One commenter has developed and produces a unique propulsion system
in which two turbine engines drive a single propeller through a common
gearbox. In addition to the installations already being made in
existing airplanes, the commenter anticipates a future installation of
this system in an airplane of entirely new design. Since any new model
would have to be type certificated under the provisions of part 25 in
order to be eligible for operation under part 121, the commenter
requests that part 25 be amended to accommodate airplanes with this or
similar propulsion systems.
FAA Response: Rather than forcing the retirement of part 23 normal
category airplanes, as recommended by ALPA, the FAA proposed in Notice
No. 95-5 to permit their continued use in air carrier service provided
certain changes were made on a retrofit basis to enhance their level of
safety. Banning those airplanes would be extremely costly, but most
importantly could result in an unintended safety decrement. Indeed, the
FAA's analysis indicates that moving too quickly on the imposition of
part 121 standards
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
could have the unintended effect of lowering the
level of safety because operators would not be in a financial position
to quickly obtain new airplanes and currently there are not enough
replacement airplanes available that meet the higher standards. The
result could be a shift from 10- to 19-seat turbopropeller airplanes to
9-seat or less reciprocating engine airplanes, which have an even
higher accident rate.
The six commenters' assertions that commuter category standards of
part 23 are appropriate for airplanes of this class and that there is
no evidence that safety would be enhanced by type certification under
part 25 are, to a certain extent, correct. Through a number of recent
amendments and pending amendments, the level of safety established by
the commuter category has been and is being enhanced considerably. In
many instances, commuter category airplanes must meet standards that
are the same as, or very similar to, those of part 25 transport
[[Page 65842]]
category. Requiring future 10- to 19- passenger seat airplanes to be
type certificated under part 25 would complete this effort to ensure
that these airplanes used in air carrier service meet the same aircraft
certification standards as the larger airplanes.
In response to comments that part 23 airplanes could not be type
certificated using part 25 standards, the FAA notes that it did not
propose in Notice No. 95-5 that part 23 normal or commuter category
airplanes presently in operation would have to comply with part 25
standards for type certification. Instead, it proposed that part 23
airplanes that will be required to be operated under part 121 will have
to comply with certain part 121 equipment and performance requirements.
In response to the individual comment on a unique propulsion
system, although the commenter's request is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, it will be considered during the review of part 25
discussed above.
V.D. Flight Time Limits and Rest Requirements
The FAA proposed that the part 121 domestic flight time limits and
rest requirements would apply to affected commuter operators when
conducting operations within the United States. Under the proposal
affected commuter operators, when conducting operations to or from the
United States, would comply with the flag flight time limitations and
rest requirements of subpart R. Additionally, if these certificate
holders use these same airplanes for nonscheduled operations, those
certificate holders would be required to comply with supplemental
flight time limitations and rest requirements of subpart S of part 121.
As stated in Notice 95-5, since the flight time limitations and
rest requirements for flag and supplemental operations were not updated
in 1985 when domestic limits were, the FAA has developed an NPRM that
is being issued concurrently with this final rule. (See elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register.)
Comments: Atlantic Southeast Airlines (ASA), Regional Airlines
Association (RAA), and Big Sky Airlines comment that the FAA should
provide specific and scientifically-based data to support this
significant change. Fairchild Aircraft adds that the additional time
off duty provided by the proposal will not necessarily be used for
rest. NATA comments that there are differences in part 135 operations
that justify a different set of flight time limitations and rest
requirements: part 135 operations are generally confined to a
particular area, pilots of smaller certificate holders rarely commute a
long distance to and from work, and pilots have fewer overnight stays
as part of their schedules. Air Vegas comments that unless an exception
is provided, seasonal operators would have to hire additional crews in
order not to exceed the 7-day limit of 30 hours or the monthly limit of
120 hours. This commenter notes that short-term employment of such
pilots is next to impossible. Morton Beyer and Associates comments that
the cost of hiring additional pilots is expected to add another $250
million to airline costs. Twin Otter International comments that the
1,200 yearly limit in part 135 is based on the part 121 100-hour-per-
month concept, and that the regulations really are similar.
Several individuals strongly urge the FAA to adopt the part 121
standards for the upgrading commuter pilots. American Eagle comments
that it applies part 121 domestic rules to its part 135 operations and
believes that all air carriers providing commercial passenger service
should use either the domestic or flag rules of part 121.
One individual notes that the reduced rest provision in part 135
allows for only 8 hours of rest between scheduled flights. Another
individual comments that commuter pilots have a high frequency of
takeoffs and landings, fly in the busier low-altitude airspace, deal
with more controllers per flight mile, and deal with more weather than
their part 121 counterparts. One person comments that certificate
holders routinely schedule 3-4 hour breaks to preclude violations of
the 8 hours of flight in 24 hours rule; however, the effect of this is
to stretch out the duty day. The result is a higher duty time to flight
time ratio which is not accounted for in the current rules. IAPA
supports the proposal but also expresses concern that the current
regulations fail to count, as part of duty time, the time period when
flightcrews are on reserve duty, standby duty, or carrying a pager or
other telephonic device. IAPA urges the FAA to treat reserve or standby
duty as duty time.
ALPA comments that while the upgrade to part 121 will result in an
improvement in flight time limits and rest requirements, part 121 will
continue to be deficient in this area until additional rulemaking
action is taken, as promised by the FAA.
Alaska commenters argue for maintaining the current regulations.
ERA Aviation estimates that if the proposed rule is adopted, it would
necessitate at least a 15% increase in the number of pilots it would
need, resulting in a $500,000+ increase in costs. Penair finds four
reasons for excepting Alaska: Operations are conducted in the same time
zone, few Alaska pilots commute to their jobs, less than 5% of Alaska
operations occur between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and Alaska does not
have the congested ATC operations which are found in the lower 48
states. AACA also presents this argument, adding that going from 1,400
hours of duty per year down to 1,000 represents a 29% decrease in
productivity. Other Alaska certificate holders, e.g., Wings, Northern
Air Cargo, Taquan Air Service, Tanana, endorse the AACA comment.
One individual commenter from Alaska opposes any attempt to create
exceptions to the requirements for Alaska. This person supports the
assertion that Alaskan operations are basically the same as state-side
operations and should be afforded no special exemptions.
This individual, a pilot who flew over 1,300 hours last year,
states that there were many consecutively scheduled 14-hour duty days
and many canceled days off. Ten hours of rest may sound adequate, but
not for days on end. The individual questions the logic that one is
more rested in one geographic area than in another. According to the
commenter, duty cycles that are unsafe in the lower 48, are also unsafe
in Alaska.
Another individual from Alaska states that the FAA has shown no
data to indicate any problem with the provisions of Sec. 135.261(b),
which allows Alaskan scheduled operators to use Sec. 135.267. The
individual states that in 1994, he flew 1320 hours, had 173 days off,
slept in his own bed every night, and never had less than 10 continuous
hours of rest in any 24-hour period. He believes he probably had more
rest and time off than the average long-haul part 121 pilot. The
commenter states that the proposed flight/duty time limits would cause
scheduling nightmares for operations in rural/remote parts of Alaska.
FAA Response: The FAA is holding in abeyance a final decision on
the proposed imposition of current part 121 flight time limitations and
rest requirements on affected commuters pending a review and
disposition of comments on the separate flight and duty rulemaking in
which the FAA proposes to overhaul all the flight and duty rules. The
separate rulemaking, if adopted, would harmonize flight and rest
requirements for all part 121 and part 135 carriers. The FAA
anticipates that the separate rulemaking will result in a net cost
savings to the industry as
[[Page 65843]]
a whole. In the meantime, affected commuters will continue to operate
under the current part 135 flight and duty rules. This will prevent
needless expenditure of resources by affected commuters who would have
to implement flight and rest provisions under the commuter rule
proposal and then later might have to change their system to comply
with the separate rulemaking. For the same reasons the FAA will allow
part 121 certificate holders operating in Alaska and Hawaii to continue
to follow the flight and duty rules of part 121 applicable to flag
operations, even though under this rulemaking these certificate holders
are now classified as conducting domestic operations.
Accordingly, Secs. 121.470, 121.480, and 121.500 include an
exception for affected commuters allowing that they continue to comply
with flight time limits and rest requirements of part 135.
Additionally, Sec. 121.470 will allow existing Alaska and Hawaii
intrastate scheduled domestic operations to continue to be conducted
under flag rules.
V.E. Age 60 Rule
Section 121.383(c) prohibits a certificate holder from using the
services of any person as a pilot, and prohibits any person from
serving as a pilot, on an airplane engaged in operations under part 121
if that person has reached his or her 60th birthday. Part 135 has not
had any such limitation. The FAA proposed to impose one age limitation
on all pilots employed in part 121 operations, including those pilots
currently employed in affected part 135 scheduled operations. The FAA
stated in Notice 95-5 that if it determines that it is appropriate to
propose a different age limit in another rulemaking action, it will
propose to apply the revised limitation to all part 121 operations,
including the pilots in commuter operations.
Comments: The age limitation question was the subject of over 2,000
written comments (including about 1,000 postcards from members of an
airline pilot organization) and oral presentations at public meetings.
The overwhelming majority of these comments concern the general
question of whether there is a need for an age limit in part 121, and
do not address any particular aspects of applying an age rule to
commuter pilots.
Several commenters, however, state that if commuter pilots are
subjected to an age limit, the FAA should adopt a phased-in
implementation schedule to avoid abruptly ending the careers of pilots
who had not planned on retiring at age 60. Another commenter states
that it hires over-age-60 retired part 121 pilots.
FAA Response: As discussed above, the FAA has identified a strong
need to enhance the safety of commuter operations. Commuter airlines
are carrying an increasing number of passengers over an increasing
number of miles. While safety has improved over the past two decades,
commuter airlines operating under part 135 continue to have a higher
accident rate than domestic part 121 airlines. The FAA can no longer
justify most distinctions between parts 121 and 135 commuter
operations.
The part 121 regulatory scheme provides a network of safety
features. Because most accidents are caused by human error, rules
designed to enhance the performance of pilots are among the most
valuable in reducing the number of accidents. Elsewhere in this
preamble the FAA discusses other provisions that serve this purpose,
such as the critical role of the aircraft dispatch system in double
checking the work of the pilot and providing updates on weather and
alternate airports. The training requirements for commuter pilots are
being upgraded, and eventually part 121 flight and duty time rules or
the newly proposed rules will apply to them. The Age 60 Rule provides
an additional measure of safety by reducing the risk that age-related
degradation will affect pilot performance. A pilot may have the best
training in the world, and be well-supported by an aircraft dispatch
system, but if the pilot suffers from a subtle age-related degradation
in performance, safety will be reduced. Also, the potential safety
benefits of training and dispatching may be reduced by human safety
lapses that could occur or do occur more frequently with age.
The ``Age 60 Rule'' was adopted by the FAA in 1959 (24 FR 9767,
December 5, 1959). At the time Notice 95-5 was issued, the FAA was also
considering whether, in the interest of safety, the Age 60 Rule should
be retained as is or revised to allow pilots to continue to fly in part
121 operations past their 60th birthday. The FAA completed its review
of the Age 60 Rule. In a Disposition of Comments (Disposition)
published in the Federal Register, [cite], the FAA announced that it
will not propose to change the Age 60 Rule at this time. The
Disposition thoroughly discusses the various issues regarding the need
for an age limitation and what that age should be, including the issues
raised in the comments to Notice 95-5 that concern the Age 60 Rule in
general, and those comments will not be further discussed here. This
rulemaking deals only with the application of part 121 rules to
affected commuter operations.
In Notice 95-5 the FAA proposed a general compliance date (that is,
a date on which most provisions must be complied with) of 1 year after
publication. The Notice also proposed delayed compliance dates for
several of the requirements (other than the age limitation), to provide
time for the work necessary to comply with the proposed requirements.
In this final rule, the FAA has adopted a general compliance date of 15
months after the date of publication of this final rule in
Sec. 121.2(c), and also has adopted delayed compliance dates for a
number of requirements, giving the air carriers 2, 4, or more years to
comply with certain of the new requirements.
In response to the comments requesting delayed compliance dates,
and after further evaluation, the FAA has considered that there are
factors warranting delay in the compliance date for the Age 60 Rule, as
it applies to those affected commuters that now will be brought under
part 121. The lack of an age limitation in part 135 has created
reasonable expectations on the part of both the affected commuter
operators and pilots regarding the length of time that the pilots would
continue in service: Some of those operators have spent money to hire
and train pilots with the expectation that they would serve past the
age of 60; and the pilots have not had to plan on leaving their
positions at age 60. In fact, certain affected commuters appear to have
a practice of hiring retired part 121 pilots, and will no longer be
able to do so.
Further, this rule requires the affected commuters to make
extensive changes in equipment, personnel, and procedures before the
general compliance date. Also, final rules have been adopted that
impose new requirements for training, including standardized pilot
training and crew resource management training. The affected commuters
operators should not be required to stop using the services of their
over-age-60 pilots in scheduled operations (10 or more seats) and train
replacements until these new programs are in place, and the training
can be under the new programs.
Accordingly, the FAA has determined that the Age 60 Rule, as it
applies to certain pilots, should have an extended compliance date. As
it applies to pilots newly hired by commuter operators, the Age 60 Rule
will apply on the general compliance date indicated in Sec. 121.2(c).
Until that date, there will be no age restrictions on the pilots of
commuter
[[Page 65844]]
operations that are upgrading to part 121. After that date, the
affected commuters will no longer be able to hire pilots who have
reached their 60th birthday (except for pilots who as of that date were
employed as pilots for another affected commuter). However, pilots who
are employed by affected commuters on that date will be able to
continue to serve until December 20, 1999, after which the Age 60 Rule
will apply to every pilot under part 121.
The delay in applying the rule will provide some relief from the
difficulties discussed above. The 4-year compliance period for these
pilots will permit the affected commuters to recover services for
several more years from those pilots in which they recently have
invested in training. Delaying the application of the rule to new hires
until the general compliance date will give affected commuters time to
adopt new hiring practices, at a time when the operators will have many
other new requirements under this rule to comply with. The 4-year
compliance period for pilots will give them time to plan for retirement
or for changing jobs. It will also give affected commuters additional
time to make careful selections of well-qualified pilots and train them
under the new training requirements. And, the operators will not have
to replace all of their over-age-60 pilots at once, at a time when so
many other new requirements must be complied with.
V.F. Dispatch System
Parts 121 and 135 require certificate holders to exercise
operational control over all flights conducted by the certificate
holder. ``Operational control'' is defined in 14 CFR part 1 as ``The
exercise of authority over initiating, conducting and terminating a
flight.'' Operational control consists of making decisions and
performing activities on an ongoing basis that are necessary to operate
specific flights safely. These activities include among other things
crew and airplane scheduling, reviewing weather and NOTAM's (Notices to
Airmen), and flight planning.
Parts 121 and 135 provide for three general types of operational
control systems based on the kinds of operations and the complexity of
operations: aircraft dispatch, flight following, and flight locating
systems. Part 121 domestic and flag operations require a dispatch
system, part 121 supplemental requires a flight following system, and
part 135 requires a flight locating system for any flight for which a
flight plan is not filed. In Notice 95-5, the FAA proposed that the
affected commuters would be required to have a dispatch system.
Affected commuters would have to meet all part 121 dispatch
requirements, including dispatcher qualification requirements,
recordkeeping, and flight release requirements. As proposed, affected
commuters that would conduct some nonscheduled flights under part 121
supplemental rules could use a flight following method for the
nonscheduled flights.
The FAA also stated in Notice 95-5 that Alaskan operations pose
certain unique problems and requested comments on alternatives that
could be considered for Alaska.
Comments: Two individuals suggest that the use of a dispatcher and
dispatch system be an option for 10- to 19-seat certificate holders,
recommending compliance with existing subpart F of part 121. Both
commenters believe that the FAA should seriously consider permitting,
at least on an interim 36-month basis, compliance with subpart F flight
following requirements in lieu of subpart E dispatch requirements for
transition carriers. This will, in their opinions, gain the early
momentum of the industry by making it possible for many certificate
holders to transition early. A long lead time is necessary to qualify
existing personnel as dispatchers under existing part 65. The
commenters remind the agency that during the early 1980's, by the FAA's
own rules, 20- to 30-seat aircraft were subject to part 121
supplemental rules, including the flight following requirements of
subpart F. One of these individuals also states that interim compliance
with subpart F flight following requirements would ease the transition
to subpart E dispatch requirements for affected certificate holders.
NATA comments that the FAA lacks understanding on the types of
operations 10- to 19-seat certificate holders typically fly and
recommends a flight following system instead of a dispatch system. NATA
states that many small, independent carriers operating aircraft with 10
to 19 seats may have only 2 to 4 of these types of airplanes and may
operate them over only a few selected routes. According to NATA, many
of these carriers conduct on-demand operations in addition to their
scheduled activity. NATA believes, along with several other commenters,
that for operations such as these, to implement a full dispatch system
will result in significant cost with little or no benefit.
RAA and other commenters suggest that the FAA identify specific
safety objectives in requiring a dispatch system for short-haul
certificate holders.
One commenter believes that a formal dispatch system for all
scheduled air carriers should be required, but points out both the pros
and cons of requiring such a system. This commenter, as well as others,
states that pilots may be shouldering many additional responsibilities
other than flying the aircraft in an effort to minimize the cost of
flight operations. Due to the task saturation of pilots and other
crewmembers, functions involving flight planning, weather analysis, and
weight and balance calculations may not be thoroughly performed.
According to the commenter, the majority of commuter pilots are, as a
rule, very young and inexperienced. These crews must continually
perform at peak levels of performance both on the ground and in the
air.
According to this commenter, as well as others, the use of the
flight dispatcher would increase safety, operational efficiency, and
productivity. The duties of filing the flight plans, checking NOTAMs,
planning fuel requirements dictated by weather, and obtaining ATC
routing would be completed by the dispatcher prior to the crew arriving
for the flight. Optimum routes based on known ATC or weather delays
would be filed, resulting in substantial fuel savings and improved
arrival and departure reliability. The pilots would now be able to
concentrate on flying and be able to relax and rest between flights.
Flight could be more effectively managed, thus saving fuel, maximizing
aircraft utilization, and passenger satisfaction.
On the other hand, according to the commenter, mandating the
dispatch system for part 135 air carriers may create some heavy
financial burdens. It will require a facility, communications hardware
for the facility and the aircraft, trained personnel, and training for
dispatchers. The initial capital outlay would not be recovered for
several years. According to the commenter, this mandate will place
severe constraints on many less established carriers and may actually
result in bankruptcy for some.
Many commenters are in favor of the role of the aircraft dispatcher
in operational control issues. One commenter states that the
requirement for a formal dispatch system is long overdue.
One commenter believes that dispatch centers might create a sense
of complacency on the part of the flightcrew and, along with other
commenters, thinks that automated flight planning and flight following
information should be used in lieu of dispatchers and dispatch centers.
Two
[[Page 65845]]
of the commenters advocating automated flight following systems state
that the three accidents cited by the FAA in Notice 95-5 would not have
been prevented by the use of a dispatcher. One commenter states that in
his experience PIC's typically check dispatcher computations but do not
duplicate the computations as the FAA stated in Notice 95-5.
The NTSB states that in its 1994 study report, it examined the
differences in flight dispatch requirements between parts 121 and 135.
The NTSB found that, in the absence of support from licensed dispatch
personnel, pressures on commuter airline pilots to accomplish several
tasks between flights in shorter periods of time might increase the
risk of critical mistakes that could jeopardize the safety of flight.
As a result, the NTSB recommended that the FAA require each principal
operations inspector (POI) to periodically review air carrier flight
operations policies and practices concerning pilot tasks performed
between flights. This review was to ensure that carriers provide pilots
with adequate resources (such as time and personnel) to accomplish
those tasks. According to NTSB, the proposed rulemaking, if
implemented, would meet the intent of the safety recommendation (A-94-
193).
ASA, RAA, and Gulfstream International Airlines support many of the
elements of the dispatcher rule. They state that flight dispatch
systems that are required under part 121 are extensive since they
address the dispatch and en route communications needs for a span of
air carriers from international airlines with worldwide flight
operations to the largest U.S. regional carriers. ASA supports the
requirement for licensed dispatchers, believing that the most qualified
candidates for licensing as dispatchers are the individuals currently
employed as flight followers. These commenters request that the
criteria in Sec. 65.57 be examined to provide guidance for granting a
dispatcher certificate based on practical experience as a flight
follower under part 135 operations. According to the commenters, many
flight followers have passed the written portion of the dispatch
license but have not attended formal dispatch school and do not hold
licenses. However, they may have extensive practical experience in
scheduled air carrier operations performing what is essentially a
dispatcher function. According to these commenters, the criteria
contained in Sec. 65.57 includes experience in scheduled military
operations. The commenters believe that if military experience is
applicable, the experience of a flight follower with a scheduled
airline should qualify. These commenters also point out that the
practical portion of the dispatcher license is administered using a
Boeing 727 aircraft. The commenters believe that while many of the
functions and decision making circumstances would be the same, the
experience of part 135 flight followers, managing flights of high
performance turbopropeller-powered aircraft is a considerably more
significant and practical measure of their capabilities than military
experience or demonstrating their skills in managing a turbojet
operation. The commenters believe that the cost and time to send
current flight followers to a formal dispatcher school is not
justified.
Samoa Air comments that since its longest flight is only 70 miles
(35 minutes), a dispatch system would not enhance or change any of its
current requirements. Samoa has established VFR and IFR fuel
requirements to all of its destinations and the requirements do not
change. The only alternate airport is the destination airport. Samoa
also states that Sec. 121.101 requires each domestic and flag operator
to show that enough weather reporting facilities are available along
each route to ensure weather reports and forecasts necessary for
operations. Section 135.213 allows the pilot in command to use various
other sources, including his own weather assessment, for VFR
operations. Of the four airports Samoa serves, only one (departure
airport) is in controlled airspace with weather reporting facilities
and instrument approach procedures. Enroute and terminal weather
conditions are received through the ATC tower from their weather
station. VHF communications with the tower cover almost the entire
route, so the aircraft has ready access to any weather information
available and direct information on the status of communications,
navigation, and airport facilities. A dispatcher would not enhance
safety but would add significant cost. If Samoa is required to provide
weather conditions at each airport to the pilot from an approved source
and the pilot can not assess the weather himself, the rule change could
eliminate all of Samoa's present operations.
Similarly, Inter Island and Air Vegas comment that the requirement
for enroute weather reporting is unfeasible because of minimal weather
reporting facilities in the certificate holders' regions. Air Vegas
also comments that radio communication in mountainous terrain would be
difficult if not impossible with VHF radio systems because mountains
block radio transmission.
Air Vegas comments that all ``dispatcher duties'' are currently
being accomplished by personnel in the operations department, station
managers, and company pilots. All flight following is being done by
telephone. The commenter states that current flight following
procedures meet part 135 requirements and are operationally safe and
efficient.
Mesa Airlines comments that due to its short flight segments and
the lack of significant weather changes in the areas in which it
operates, a dispatch system is not needed. Mesa believes that all
enroute communications can be accomplished by ATC.
AACA states that the requirements of subpart E come at a time when
the availability of weather information in Alaska has been identified
as a significant issue adversely affecting aviation activities
(proceedings of an NTSB ``Aviation Safety in Alaska'' forum, May 1995).
The Airline Dispatchers Federation supports the dispatch proposal
and agrees with the upgrading of current commuter facilities to
dispatch centers. It believes this upgrading is necessary because of
the extensive use of code-sharing by the aviation industry. The
commenter is not in favor of amending part 121 dispatch rules for
certificate holders of the 10- to 19-seat category. The commenter
provides its estimate of costs to certificate holders that could be
affected by the implementation of this rule. The commenter notes that
the costs provided by some certificate holders may not be accurate. For
example, cost estimates concerning flight planning and performance
issues are inaccurate since several airlines use bulk stored flight
plans and performance information taken directly from aircraft flight
manuals for fuel planning. The commenter also provides its assessment
of various aircraft accidents for which it believes dispatchers could
have made a difference in changing events that led to the accident
(crew fatigue, lack of management oversight, operational control
issues, late arriving weather information).
ALPA comments that dispatchers should be required to complete their
5-hour inflight operating experience in 10- to 30-seat aircraft, not in
larger 60-seat aircraft, as currently allowed. ALPA proposes that
Sec. 121.400(b) be amended by adding a group specific to propeller-
driven aircraft with a seating capacity between 10-30 seats.
AACA comments that due to the operating environment of Alaska, the
pilot and not the dispatcher is in a
[[Page 65846]]
better position to access and evaluate operational control information.
The commenter believes that scheduled operations in Alaska more closely
resemble the operations conducted under supplemental rules and not
domestic or flag operations. The commenter notes that pilots frequently
are not in radio communication with company offices directly, but could
communicate via Flight Service Station, ATC, or other aircraft.
According to the commenter, enroute and destination weather conditions
are either not accessible or not available at any time from
``official'' sources. The commenter notes that three affected
certificate holders in Alaska presently have a part 121 type dispatch
system in place. AACA further states that the assumption that estimated
fuel savings by dispatchers would offset the cost of establishing a
dispatch system is not true. AACA recommends that the FAA adopt the
flight following supplemental rules of part 121 for Alaskan 10-19 seat
certificate holders. AACA also recommends that current part 135
personnel be ``grandfathered'' for dispatcher certificates if they have
been employed as flight followers. The commenter notes that the
practical experience dealing with turboprop aircraft and flight
planning may be lost to the industry if flight followers are required
to take extensive dispatcher training courses, pass a written and
practical test, and lose time and money on the job while they obtain an
FAA dispatcher certificate.
FAA Response: The FAA anticipates that requiring operators to have
a certificated dispatcher double check the work of the pilot and
provide the flightcrew with updates on weather and alternate airports
can reduce human factor errors. With a dispatcher system, the chances
of pilot miscalculations or oversights could be reduced. Moreover, a
dispatcher can assist the flightcrew in making plans for an alternate
airport (which might be necessary due to weather problems, air traffic
control problems, airplane equipment problems, fuel problems, etc * *
*) during the flight while the crew focuses on flying the airplane.
The FAA disagrees with the recommendation to make the use of a
dispatcher and dispatch system optional since that would not address
the safety issues involved. The FAA also disagrees that a flight
following system is an acceptable alternative to a dispatch system or
that dispatch systems are not needed for limited flight distances if
there is adequate weather reporting facilities. The use of a dispatch
system is based on the type of operation (scheduled), and not the
distance of a flight, the number of aircraft, or the type of aircraft
being flown. Flight following systems are used for nonscheduled
operations, and could be used for nonscheduled operations by affected
commuters under the supplemental rules of part 121. Note: The dispatch
system requirements apply only to scheduled passenger-carrying
operations.
The FAA disagrees with the basic idea that the decision making
process of operational control of aircraft can be made by automated
means. While automation has improved the accuracy and timeliness of
flight planning, weather information, and NOTAMs, nothing so far has
replaced the decision making capabilities of a certificated dispatcher.
Dispatchers receive training in subject matter beyond just flight
planning, e.g. crew resource management, hazardous materials
regulations. These subjects are just a small representation of the
subject matter an aircraft dispatcher must know in order to make
operational control decisions.
The FAA agrees with the comment that dispatchers are usually in a
better position to review weather reports and forecasts than pilots
hurrying to accomplish other postflight/preflight aircraft duties.
Operational control issues are enhanced when both the pilot in command
and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the safe
conduct of a flight. As several commenters point out the overall level
of safety is enhanced when a dispatcher is available to assist and back
up the pilots who already may have numerous responsibilities in
addition to flying the airplane. Thus, while it may not be possible to
pinpoint accidents that have actually been prevented by a dispatch
system, there can be little doubt that the existence of a dispatch
system contributes to the overall high level of safety of scheduled
operations under part 121.
The FAA does not agree that use of dispatchers would lead to
complacency on the part of the flight crewmembers. Section 121.663
states that for each domestic and flag operation, a dispatch release
must be prepared based on information furnished by an authorized
dispatcher. The pilot in command and an authorized dispatcher shall
sign the release only if they both believe that the flight can be made
safely. Dispatchers provide the necessary resources and expertise
needed to review operational control issues.
In response to comments that in some companies ``dispatch''
functions are being adequately performed by individuals from three
separate departments (operations, station managers, and company
pilots), the FAA finds that operational control decisions can not be
effectively made by three separate groups of individuals. The
perception is that ``whoever is available'' makes the decision. For
effective operational control, the dispatch process should be
standardized and consistent.
In response to NATA's and others' comments on the nature of 10- to
19-seat certificate holders, the FAA finds that these certificate
holders are not unique. The same situation currently exists for some
part 121 certificate holders who are required to maintain dispatch
systems.
In response to comments on the issue of limited areas of operation
and short flight duration, the requirement for a dispatch facility is
not based on distances, the type of aircraft, or weather patterns
alone. It is the type of operation (scheduled) an air carrier is
currently operating under that determines if dispatch systems are
required. The role of the aircraft dispatcher in the operational
control of aircraft provides an enhancement to safety that has clearly
been established through years of operations by many air carriers in
both domestic and flag operations. Continuous communications could be
accomplished with HF radios or through satellite communications, both
of which can be provided through vendors.
The FAA agrees with commenters that for some part 135 certificate
holders, personnel will first have to acquire the necessary certificate
and then complete required air carrier training requirements for
dispatchers. The average dispatcher school curriculum lasts 5 weeks and
usually includes instruction on both the written and practical tests.
The FAA believes that some part 135 personnel already possess aircraft
dispatcher certificates and that these personnel would be required to
attend only the air carrier's dispatcher training program. Regardless,
once an air carrier employs a certificated dispatcher, company training
would have to be completed. That training would entail 40 hours of
basic indoctrination, differences training, initial ground/transition
of 30-40 hours (based on the type of aircraft), and a competency check
(see Sec. 121.422).
While the FAA does not agree with AACA's recommendation to
``grandfather'' dispatcher certificates to current flight followers or
flight locating personnel, Sec. 65.57 outlines a means of providing
credit for previous experience in order to take the practical test. All
[[Page 65847]]
dispatcher applicants must complete the appropriate written and
practical tests before a certificate can be issued. The FAA agrees that
training costs will be incurred to prepare current flight following or
flight locating personnel to qualify for a dispatcher certificate,
regardless of who pays for the training. Replacement personnel will be
needed if the decision by the certificate holder is to send current
employees to dispatcher training.
There is no requirement for dispatchers to attend a formal school.
Section 65.57, entitled experience requirements, allows several options
in lieu of a formal school.
In response to specific requests to expand the criteria in
Sec. 65.57 (aircraft dispatcher experience requirements) to include
personnel assigned to flight locating and flight following under part
135, the FAA believes that some part 135 experience is acceptable as
equivalent experience in Sec. 65.57. Through current policy and
guidance provided to FAA inspectors, a review on a case-by-case could
be accomplished to ascertain if an applicant has equivalent experience.
In response to comments on the current format of the dispatcher
practical exam, Sec. 65.59 requires an applicant for an aircraft
dispatcher certificate to pass a practical test with respect to any one
type of large aircraft used in air carrier operations. Further, current
practical test standards require dispatcher applicants to exhibit
adequate knowledge of applicable aircraft flight instruments and
operating systems. The scope of the practical test allows for turboprop
aircraft and representative commuter operations. Practical tests are
developed by the inspector conducting the test and can be designed for
any type of large aircraft, including turboprop airplanes.
There is only one dispatcher written examination, the Airline
Transport Pilot question book. The selection sheet has questions
applicable only to dispatchers and not based on any particular make and
model of aircraft. The FAA is considering developing written tests
geared to commuter-type operations. However, the current written exam
is valid in that it tests for areas common to all make and models of
aircraft. The test requires knowledge of various subject areas, i.e.
the ability to interpret weather information, interpret regulations,
handle emergencies, compute weight and balance, etc.
The FAA disagrees with the ALPA recommendation to require
dispatchers to receive 5 hours of operating experience in aircraft they
will actually dispatch. Section 121.463(c) requires the dispatcher to
satisfactorily complete at least 5 hours of operating familiarization
in one of the types of airplanes in each group he is to dispatch.
Section 121.400(b) includes all sizes of propeller-driven aircraft
under group 1. Therefore, the FAA allows dispatchers to complete the
operating familiarization in airplanes that are not exactly the same
size or configuration as the ones they will dispatch.
V.G. Airports
Section 121.590 requires that no air carrier or pilot conducting
operations under part 121 may operate an airplane into a land airport
in the U.S. (or territory, etc.) unless the airport is certificated
under 14 CFR part 139. Section 135.229 states that no certificate
holder may use any airport unless it is adequate for the proposed
operations.
Part 139 prescribes regulations governing the certification and
operation of all land airports that are served by any scheduled or
nonscheduled passenger air carrier operating airplanes with a seating
capacity of more than 30 passengers. The FAA's authority is limited by
statute (49 U.S.C. 44706(a)) to the 30-passenger-seat dividing line.
The FAA, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation, has
sought legislation that would grant the agency the authority to
certificate any airport that receives scheduled service by a
certificate holder utilizing airplanes designed for 10 or more
passenger seats.
Accordingly, pending Congressional resolution of this issue,
affected commuters are permitted to operate into other than part 139
certificated airports. If the FAA receives expanded authority over
airport certification, it would propose rulemaking standards that are
sufficiently flexible to cover the range of airports presently served
under part 135.
Comments: Nine comments were received on this issue, with the major
concern being that airport legislation currently being considered may
include requirements that some communities may not be able to afford
which would negatively affect air service to these communities.
The Las Vegas Department of Aviation comments that it has purchased
and upgraded satellite airports in the Las Vegas area to help relieve
the congestion at the McCarran International Airport. The commenter is
concerned that the Clark County Department of Aviation, the Grand
Canyon Tour Operators, and the Las Vegas Department of Aviation may not
be able to afford additional airport upgrades. This would cause
certificate holders that currently operate out of the non-certificated
outlying airports to move their operations back to McCarran, thereby
increasing traffic congestion and in-flight delays.
NATA and Commuter Air Technology concur with the FAA proposal to
allow part 135 certificate holders to continue to operate with existing
airport requirements, but are concerned about the airport expansion
program. NATA prefers that no new airport legislation be adopted and
that the proposed regulatory allowance for noncertificated airports be
made permanent.
A comment from Fairchild Aircraft mentions the Essential Air
Service Program enacted by Congress that guarantees air service to
small and medium size communities. Fairchild says that the commuter
industry responded to that program and provided essential air service
to small and medium communities, and that those communities may not be
able to afford the proposed airport expansion program.
Other commenters state that it would not be feasible to upgrade
smaller airports to part 139 standards. One certificate holder states
that of the five airports it serves only one meets part 139 standards;
at the other airports where the certificate holder provides essential
air service ``there is no aircraft rescue or fire fighting equipment,
airport guidance signs, airfield inspection procedures, airport staff,
snow and ice control plan, or airfield pavement maintenance. . . .''
The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), RAA,
Airports Council International-North America, and the National
Association of State Aviation Officials would like the airport
expansion issue referred to an ARAC committee before seeking federal
legislation, to allow ARAC to develop a cost-effective response to NTSB
recommendations that takes into account the difference between small
airports that serve rural communities and large airports near major
cities.
ALPA believes that the FAA should require commuters to operate out
of part 139 certificated airports in the interest of one level of
safety. ALPA recognizes that some airports in remote sites will not be
capable of complying with all part 139 requirements. However, ALPA does
not believe that an exemption should be provided for aircraft with
passenger-seating capacities of 30 or less. Rather certificate holders
that serve small airports should apply individually for an exemption or
waiver.
Commuter Technology expresses concern that a revised part 139 may
result in the application of airplane
[[Page 65848]]
operator security regulations of part 108 and the airport security
regulations of part 107 to air carriers using aircraft with a seating
capacity of 30 or fewer seats. The commenter believes that the ARAC
committee that is tasked with recommending revisions to part 139 should
also be tasked with restricting or eliminating the applicability of
part 107 to small airports. According to the commenter the application
of parts 107 and 108 to commuter air carriers and the airports that
serve them could have a radical effect on the economic viability of the
air carriers and airports.
FAA Response: The FAA has assigned a task to the Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to recommend the requirements in
part 139 that should be applicable to airports covered under any
expanded legislation that would give the FAA authority to certificate
airports serving airplanes with less than 30 passengers. In the
meantime, Sec. 121.590 is adopted as proposed to allow affected
commuters to use noncertificated airports. In making its
recommendations ARAC is to consider accepted industry practices
regarding airport safety, personnel available at these airports, costs
associated with meeting these requirements (e.g. capital, operating,
and maintenance costs), and the types of accidents/incidents that have
occurred at these airports.
In response to the comment on security programs for airports and
operators, no changes to parts 107 and 108 are necessary as a result of
this rule because the requirements of those parts are already tailored
to the size of the airplane.
V.H. Effective Date and Compliance Schedule
The FAA proposed an effective date of 30 days and a general
compliance date of 1 year after publication of the final rule. The FAA
stated in Notice 95-5 that a final rule, if adopted, would be published
by December 31, 1995, and that within 1 year of that date, that is, by
December 31, 1996, all affected certificate holders that have air
carrier certification or operating certificates issued under part 135
at the time of publication would have completed the approval process
and obtained new operations specifications giving them authority to
conduct domestic or flag operations under part 121.
Under the proposal, persons who do not already have air carrier
certificates or operating certificates who submit applications for or
obtain air carrier certificates or operating certificates after 30 days
after the publication date of the final rule would be required to
obtain part 121 operations specifications; however, these new entrants
would meet the same requirements as the affected commuters, i.e.,
delayed dates for retrofit of airplanes with certain types of
equipment.
Proposed Sec. 121.2(c) and Sec. 135.2(c) allow for regular or
accelerated compliance with part 121 requirements. Proposed
Secs. 121.2(g) and 135.2(g) also require an affected certificate holder
to submit to the FAA a transition plan for moving from part 135 to part
121.
Comments: Eleven comments were received on this issue. Several
commenters express a desire for an ``incremental'' or ``phased''
compliance schedule. Two commenters are concerned that the proposed
``turnkey'' recertification event is high risk with no early rewards or
benefits.
RAA suggests revising proposed Secs. 121.2(c) and 135.2(c) to
require compliance ``not later than'' 1 year after final rule
publication rather than the proposed ``as of,'' and adding the word
``complete'' before ``14 CFR part 121 operations specifications.'' RAA
also suggests adding a new paragraph to the section that would state
that a certificate holder may be authorized under its transition plan
to comply with portions of part 121 instead of the equivalent portions
of part 135 in advance of being issued complete 14 CFR part 121
operations specifications. Accordingly RAA recommends adding to the
transition plan requirements of paragraph (g) a new subparagraph to
include in the transition plans provisions for interim compliance with
portions of part 121 in advance of obtaining complete 14 CFR 121
operations specifications. Other commenters also request provisions for
complying with portions of part 121 in advance of obtaining part 121
operations specifications.
Other commenters also state concerns about FAA's capacity to
facilitate the transition process on schedule. Two commenters perceive
a shortage of trained inspectors and suggest that the compliance date
be extended if an adequate number of inspectors are not provided by mid
year 1996. GAMA suggests a reevaluation of the implementation schedule
of Sec. 121.2(d)(1), citing a questionable number of aircraft
certification service personnel to support the extensive design
approval activity certain to occur. Another commenter expresses concern
over the necessary type certification activity surrounding
modifications and suggests that 1 year is an unrealistic compliance
deadline given the current FAA Aircraft Certification Office backlog.
RAA is concerned that the population of FAA inspectors qualified to
perform their duties under part 121 will not be able to respond to the
new part 121 air carriers. According to RAA, FAA inspectors must be
trained and qualified to help affected commuters achieve the
transition. RAA recommends a ``fill in the blanks manual'' to achieve
standardization among FAA regions and districts. If there is an
insufficient number of qualified FAA inspectors, the 1996 compliance
date should be delayed.
ASA proposes a standardized transition program including three
elements: (1) a fill-in-the-blanks manual for transitioning carriers;
(2) an automatic exemption and incremental approval process; and (3)
time schedules from transitioning carriers submitted to FAA.
Mesa Airlines recommends pre-formal certification meetings with
principal operations inspectors (POI's) at an early date to familiarize
both parties with the certification process outlined in FAA Order
8400.10. According to Mesa, compliance statement development,
individual operator transition plans, GOM (general operating manual)
development, and formal certificate application should be scheduled for
the spring of 1996 to allow adequate review by respective POI's.
According to Mesa this would allow certificate holders to be running
their commuter operations under part 121 rules by the summer of 1996.
This in turn would allow for a start-up phase for part 121 dispatch
operations and modifications to the requirements for proving runs as
proposed in Sec. 121.163 and would eliminate the necessity for formal
initial operating experience (IOE).
There were several comments on specific compliance dates. ALPA is
generally pleased with the compliance schedule, but states that the 4-
year compliance date for the installation of pitot heat indication
systems could be shortened to 2 years, given the relative ease of the
modification. Fairchild Aircraft finds fault with the fact that a 2-
year delay is provided for compliance with emergency exit handle
illumination, but no delay is allowed for compliance with
Sec. 121.310(b)(2)(ii), which would require the replacement of exit
signs on new commuter category airplanes. Mesa Airlines suggests that
compliance with part 121 crew flight and duty limitations be changed to
January 1, 1997.
FAA Response: The final rule has a 30-day effective date and a
general compliance date of 15 months after publication of the final
rule. The FAA is extending the general compliance
[[Page 65849]]
date to be consistent with the compliance date in the training
rulemaking referenced in Section III. E, Related FAA Action. Also, the
proposed delayed compliance dates for certain retrofit requirements
have been modified in response to comments. The final rule also
establishes delayed compliance dates for meeting the performance
operating limitations of part 121 for certain airplanes. Compliance
dates are provided in Sec. 121.2. This section has been reorganized to
separate compliance dates for 10-19 seat airplanes and those for 20-30
seat airplanes. Retrofit and performance requirements compliance dates
are listed on Table 1 and discussed in the appropriate place in the
preamble.
Because of the scope and significance of this rulemaking, the FAA
has already begun planning for the implementation of the final rule.
Training has been provided for inspectors who will be responsible for
overseeing the transition of the affected commuters from part 135 to
part 121 operations. Additional training planned for January 1996 will
focus on the recertification and transition process. Extensive guidance
material is being prepared to assist the inspectors during the
transition process. Portions of this material will also be made
available to the affected commuters.
The FAA agrees with Mesa Airlines that meetings between POI's and
affected commuters would help facilitate the preparation of the
transition plan, which is due 90 days from today, and the planning
necessary to ensure that normal operations can continue during the
transition phase. The FAA believes that the training given to its
inspectors, the guidance material being prepared, and a cooperative
working relationship between the affected commuters and the FAA will
ensure a smooth transition to part 121 operations.
The transition plan must include the certificate holder's proposed
calendar of events that shows how and when it plans to make changes in
its operations to meet the requirements of part 121. The transition
plan should also show detailed plans for accomplishing activities and
necessary retrofits for requirements with delayed compliance dates. The
POI and the certificate holder will schedule the inspections necessary
to show compliance with part 121 requirements. When the inspections are
complete and the FAA has determined that the certificate holder can
comply with part 121, the FAA will issue new operations specifications.
Until the new operations specifications are issued, the existing
operations specifications remain in effect. In any case the existing
operations specifications expire on: (1) The date the new operations
specifications are issued; or (2) 15 months from this date of
publication, whichever is earlier. Affected certificate holders who
want to comply with certain part 121 requirements in advance of being
issued complete 14 CFR part 121 operations specifications could include
in their transition plan a phased schedule including advance compliance
for certain part 121 requirements, subject to their POI's approval.
Table 1--Summary of Modifications shows the compliance dates for
certain retrofit and performance requirements for affected commuters.
Many of these are required by the end of the basic 15-month compliance
period. Affected commuters should be aware that by the specified date
they must comply with all part 121 requirements, not just the ones
listed on Table 1. Although the table includes additional items that
were not listed in the table in Notice 95-5, no new requirements are
involved. Not all requirements are in the table. The purpose of the
table is to show the compliance dates for certain equipment and
performance requirements that necessitate advance planning for
purchasing and installation. Many of the delayed requirements apply to
airplanes in the current fleet, while others apply only to newly
manufactured airplanes.
It should also be noted that Sec. 121.2(h) requires a certificate
holder to comply with corresponding part 135 requirements, as
applicable, in the interval between the effective date of this rule and
when the certificate holder is in compliance with the part 121
requirements. In addition, the intent of Sec. 121.2(h) is also included
in specific sections that have delayed compliance dates.
This table does not apply to certificate holders currently
operating under part 121. The passenger seating configuration numbers
provided in the chart do not mean that the requirement applies only to
that size airplane but rather that the requirement is new for that size
airplane.
Table 1.--Summary of New Equipment and Performance Modifications for Affected Commuters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of required upgrade is as Upgrade will apply to all airplanes Upgrade will apply to all
stated, measured from the rule including newly manufactured airplanes newly manufactured
publication date ------------------------------------------ airplanes
------------------------------------------ Within ----------------------------
Issue/requirement Within 15 months years (#) After years (#)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Passenger Seat Cushion Flammability, ........................... 15
10-19 Pax Secs. 121.2, 121.312(c).
2. Lavatory Fire Protection, 10-30 Pax ........................... 2
Secs. 121.2, 121.308.
3. Exterior Emergency Exit Markings, 10- Yes.
19 Pax Sec. 121.310(g).
4. Pitot Heat Indication System, 10-19 ........................... 4
Pax Secs. 121.2, 121.342.
5. Landing Gear Aural Warning, 10-19 Pax ........................... 2
Secs. 121.2, 121.289.
6. Takeoff Warning System, 10-19 Pax ........................... ........... 4.
Secs. 121.2, 121.293.
7. Emergency Exit Handle Illumination, 10- ........................... 2
19 Pax Secs. 121.2, 121.310(e)(2).
8. First Aid Kits, 10-19 Pax Sec. Yes.
121.309(d)(1)(i).
9. Emergency Medical Kits, 20-30 Pax Sec. Yes.
121.309(d)(1)(ii).
10. Wing Ice Light, 10-19 Pax Sec. Yes.
121.341(b).
11. Fasten Seat Belt Light and Placards, Yes \1\ ........... 21.
10-19 Pax Secs. 121.2, 121.317.
12. Third Attitude Indicator, 10-30 Pax:.
Turbojet............................. Yes \2\.
Turboprop Secs. 121.2, 121.305(j)... ........................... 152 15 months.\2\
13. Airborne Weather Radar, 10-19 Pax Yes.
Sec. 121.357.
14. Protective Breathing Equipment, 10-30
Pax.
Sec. 121.2.......................... ........................... 2
[[Page 65850]]
Sec. 121.337(b)(8)--Smoke and fume
protection
Sec. 121.337(b)(9)--Fire fighting
(20-30 only)
15. Safety Belts and Shoulder Harnesses, ........................... ........... 15 months.
Single point inertial harness, 10-19 Pax
Secs. 121.2, 121.311(f).
16. Cabin Ozone Concentration, 10-30 Pax Yes.
Sec. 121.578.
17. Retention of Galley Equipment, 10-30 Yes.
Pax Secs. 121.576, 121.577.
18. Ditching approval, 10-30 Pax Secs. Yes \3\.................... 153
121.2, 121.161(b).
19. Flotation means, 10-30 Pax Secs. ........................... 2
121.2, 121.340.
20. Door Key and Locking Door, 20-30 Pax Yes.
Sec. 121.313(f) & (g).
21. Portable O2, 20-30 Pax Sec. 121.327- Yes.
121.335.
22. Additional life rafts, 10-30 Pax Sec. Yes.
121.339.
23. First Aid Oxygen, 20-30 Pax Sec. Yes.
121.333(e)(3).
24. Enroute radio communications, 10-30 Yes.
Pax Sec. 121.99.
25. Latex gloves, 10-30 Pax Sec. Yes.
121.309(d)(2).
26. Passenger information cards, 20-30 Yes.
Pax Sec. 121.571(b).
27. Flashlights-additional for flight Yes.
attendant and pilot, 10-30 Pax Sec.
121.549(b).
28. Flashlight holder for flight Yes.
attendant, 20-30 Pax Sec. 121.310(l).
29. DME, 10-30 Pax Sec. 121.349(c)...... Yes.
30. Single engine cruise performance Yes.
data, 10-30 Pax (required for
determining alternates) Sec. 121.617.
31. Performance, Obstruction Clearance, Yes.\4\.................... 154
and Accelerate-stop Requirements, 10-19
Pax Secs. 121.2, 121.157, 121.173(b),
121.189(c).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In-service airplanes must comply within 15 months. They may use lights or placards. Newly manufactured
airplanes must comply with seat belt sign requirements of Sec. 121.317(a) within 2 years.
\2\ Turbojet airplanes must comply within 15 months. Newly manufactured turboprop airplanes must comply within
15 months. In-service 10-30 pax turboprop airplanes must comply within 15 years.
\3\ Transport category must comply within 15 months. Nontransport category can operate for 15 years without
ditching approval.
\4\ Commuter category airplanes must comply within 15 months. SFAR 41 and predecessor category airplanes must
comply within 15 years.
VI. Discussion of Specific Proposals
In this section specific proposals for part 121 and part 119 are
summarized, comments received are discussed, and the FAA's response to
those comments is given. In Section VII comments received on the costs
and benefits of the proposed rule are addressed. The part 121
discussion, which applies to the affected commuters, appears first
(Section VI.A). Table 2 provides a listing of comparable sections in
part 135 for each specific requirement discussed in this portion of the
preamble. This is followed by a discussion of part 119 issues, which
apply to all certificate holders under part 121 and part 135 (Section
VI.B).
Table 2.--Comparable Sections in Parts 121 and 135
[This table shows the comparable sections in parts 121 and 135 for each issue discussed in this preamble.
Affected commuters, however, must comply with all sections in part 121 that are applicable to their operations,
not just the ones listed in this table or discussed in this preamble]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject 135 Section 121 Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subparts E and F--Approval of 135.213............................... 121.97, 121.99, 121.101, 121.107.
Routes: Domestic, Flag, and
Supplemental Operations.
Subpart G--Manual Requirements... 135.21, .23........................... 121.133, .135, 121.137.
--Contents and personnel..... ...................................... 121.141.
--Airplane flight manual
Subpart I--Airplane Performance 135.365-.387.......................... 121.175-.197.
Operating Limitations.
Subpart J--Special Airworthiness ...................................... 121.217.
Requirements.
--Internal doors............. 135.87................................ 121.285.
--Cargo carried in the 135 App. A............................ 121.289.
passenger compartment.
--Landing gear aural warning ...................................... 121.291.
device.
--Emergency evacuation and
ditching demonstration.
--New special airworthiness ...................................... 121.293(a) (new).
requirements (retrofit) and
requirements applicable to
future manufactured
airplanes.
--Ditching emergency exits... ...................................... 121.293(b) (new).
--Takeoff warning system
Subpart K--Instrument and
Equipment Requirements:
--Third attitude indicator... 135.149............................... 121.305(j).
--Lavatory fire protection... 135.163 (a), (h)...................... .....................................
--Emergency equipment ...................................... 121.308.
inspection.
--Hand-held fire 135.177(b)............................ 121.309(b).
extinguishers.
--First aid kits and medical 135.155............................... 121.309(c).
kits.
[[Page 65851]]
--Crash ax................... 135.177(a)(1)......................... 121.309(d).
--Emergency evacuation 135.177(a)(2), 135.178(c)-(h)......... 121.309(e), 121.310(c)-(h).
lighting and marking
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
requirements.
--Seatbacks
--Seatbelt and shoulder 135.117............................... 121.311(e), 121.311(f).
harnesses on the flight deck.
--Interior materials and 135.169(a)............................ 121.312(b).
passenger seat cushion
flammability.
--Miscellaneous equipment.... ...................................... 121.313 (c), (f), (g).
--Cockpit and door keys...... ...................................... 121.313(f).
--Cargo and baggage ...................................... 121.587.
compartments.
--Fuel tank access covers.... ...................................... 121.314, .221.
--Passenger information...... ...................................... 121.316.
--Instruments and equipment 135.127............................... 121.317, 121.323.
for operations at night.
--Oxygen requirements
--Portable oxygen for flight 135.157............................... 121.237-.335, 121.333(d).
attendants.
--Protective breathing ...................................... 121.337.
equipment (PBE).
--Additional life rafts for 135.167............................... 121.339.
extended underwater
operations.
--Flotation devices
--Pitot heat indication ...................................... 121.340.
system.
--Radio equipment............ 135.158............................... 121.342.
--Emergency equipment for 135.177, .178......................... 121.353.
operations over uninhabited
terrain.
--TCAS
--Flight data recorders...... 135.180............................... 121.356.
--Airborne weather radar..... 135.152 (a), (b)...................... 121.343.
--Cockpit voice recorders.... 135.173, .175......................... 121.357.
--Low-altitude windshear 135.151............................... 121.359.
systems.
--Ground proximity warning 135.153............................... .....................................
system (GPWS).
Subpart L--Maintenance,
Preventive Maintenance, and
Alterations:
--Applicability.............. 135.411(a)(2)......................... 121.361.
--Responsibility for 135.413............................... 121.363.
Airworthiness.
--Maintenance, preventive 135.423, .425......................... 121.365, .367.
maintenance, and alteration
organization.
--Manual requirements........ 135.427............................... 121.369.
--Required inspection 135.429............................... 121.371.
personnel.
--Continuing analysis and 135.431............................... 121.373.
surveillance.
--Maintenance and preventive 135.433............................... 121.375.
maintenance training
programs.
--Maintenance and preventive ...................................... 121.377.
maintenance personnel duty
time limitations.
--Certificate requirements... 135.435............................... 121.378.
--Authority to perform and 135.437............................... 121.379.
approve maintenance,
preventive maintenance, and
alterations.
--Maintenance recording 135.439(a)(2)......................... 121.380(a)(2).
requirements.
--Transfer of maintenance 135.441............................... 121.380a.
records.
Subpart M--Airman and Crewmember
Requirements:
--Flight attendant complement 135.107............................... 121.391.
--Flight attendants being 135.128(a)............................ 121.391(d).
seated during movement on
the surface.
--Flight attendants or other ...................................... 121.391(e), 121.417, 121.393 (new).
qualified personnel at the
gate.
Subparts N and O--Training ...................................... 121.400-121.459.
Program and Crewmember
Requirements.
Subpart P--Aircraft Dispatcher ...................................... 121.461-121.467.
Qualifications and Duty Time
Limitations: Domestic and Flag.
Air Carriers
Subparts Q, R, and S--Flight Time 135.261-135.273....................... 121.470-121.525.
Limitations and Rest
Requirements: Domestic, Flag,
and Supplemental Operations.
Subpart T--Flight Operations:
--Operational control........ 135.77, .79, 135.75, 135.69, .19...... 121.533, .535, 121.537, 121.547,
121.551, .553.
--Admission to the flight ...................................... 121.557, .559, 121.565 (new).
deck.
--Emergency procedures....... 135.117, .127......................... 121.571(a), 121.533, .573, 121.585.
--Passenger information...... 135.91(d)............................. 121.574.
--Oxygen for medical use by 135.121, 135.87, .122................. 121.575, 121.577.
passengers.
--Alcoholic beverages........ ...................................... 121.578(b).
--Retention of items of mass. 135.93................................ 121.579.
--Cabin ozone concentration.. ...................................... .....................................
--Minimum altitudes for use 135.75, 135.23(q)..................... 121.581, 121.586.
of autopilot.
--Forward observer's seat
--Authority to refuse 135.87, 135.229, .217................. 121.589, 121.590.
transportation.
--Carry-on baggage........... ...................................... 121.617(a).
--Airports
Subpart U--Dispatching and Flight
Release Rules:
--Flight release authority... ...................................... 121.597.
[[Page 65852]]
--Dispatch or flight release 135.211............................... 121.611.
under VFR.
--Operations in icing 135.227, .341, 135.345................ 121.629.
conditions.
--Fuel reserves.............. 135.209, .223......................... 121.639, .641, 121.643, .645.
Subpart V--Records and Reports... 135.65(c), 135.415(a)................. 121.701(a), 121.703 (a), (e).
--Maintenance log: Airplane.. 135.417............................... 121.705(b).
--Mechanical interruption 135.439(a)(2), 135.443................ 121.707, 121.709.
summary report.
--Alteration and repair ...................................... .....................................
reports.
--Airworthiness release or ...................................... 121.711, .713, 121.715.
airplane log entry.
--Other recordkeeping
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI.A. Part 121 Discussion
VI.A.1. Subpart E--Approval of Routes: Domestic and Flag Air Carriers
Section 121.97 requires each domestic and flag operator to show
that each route it submits for approval has enough airports that are
properly equipped and adequate for the proposed operation. The operator
must also have an approved system to disseminate this information to
appropriate personnel. Although part 135 has similar requirements, part
121 requires more information.
Section 121.99 requires each domestic and flag operator to have a
two-way air/ground communication system between each airplane and the
appropriate air traffic control facility, along the entire route. In
the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia, the
communications system between each airplane and the dispatch center
must be independent of any system operated by the United States. This
would be a new requirement for the affected certificate holders.
Section 121.101 requires each domestic and flag operator to show
that enough weather reporting facilities are available along each route
to ensure weather reports and forecasts necessary for the operation.
For operations within the 48 contiguous States and the District of
Columbia, these reports must be prepared by the National Weather
Service. For other areas, a system must be approved by the
Administrator. Section 135.213 has similar requirements, except that
the pilot in command is allowed to use various other sources, including
his own weather assessment, for VFR operations. This section also
requires reports of adverse weather phenomena. The FAA proposed that
affected certificate holders comply with part 121.
Section 121.107 requires each domestic and flag operator to have
enough dispatch centers, adequate for the intended operation. This
would be a new requirement for affected certificate holders, as
discussed in Section V.F., Dispatch System.
Comments: ALPA comments that the upgrade to part 121 represents a
major improvement over part 135. ALPA also comments that Subparts E and
F should be upgraded to require that each pilot have a set of approach
and navigation charts rather than having to share a set. ALPA provides
supportive information, such as an NTSB recommendation (A-95-35) for a
similar requirement.
Several comments were received on the enroute radio communication
requirements of Sec. 121.99. ASA and RAA question the need for airline
provided enroute radio communication capability for short-haul flights
and request that the requirement be reconsidered. According to these
commenters, the average enroute times for affected certificate holders
is less than an hour. For such short flights there is little time
during the enroute portion of a flight for company communication. The
cost of installing company communications would be high and safety
would not be diminished without company communication since the crew
can be contacted through Air Traffic Control.
AACA points out that this would be a new requirement for affected
commuters. Intrastate Alaskan operations now conducted under flag
operations rules will be conducted under domestic rules and would be
required to comply with the independent communications systems
requirements. Because of low altitudes, VFR flight operations, and the
lack of Remote Communications Outlet at many locations, maintaining
communications will require construction of a large communications
infrastructure. When operators in Alaska use flag rules, AACA
interprets Sec. 121.99 to not require the communications system be
independent of any system operated by the United States.
FAA Response: The ALPA suggestion on requiring that each pilot have
a separate set of navigation and approach charts is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking; however, the FAA is planning to initiate a separate
rulemaking on the issue.
Section 121.99 requires each domestic and flag air carrier to have
a two-way radio communication system that is independent of any system
operated by the United States. FAA flight service stations and air
traffic control facilities that are currently providing radio
communication service for certificate holders are used for the control
of aircraft and were never intended to be used by individual
certificate holders to relay information that is the certificate
holder's responsibility, such as scheduling changes or weather
information. Hence, an additional expense would be incurred by
certificate holders required to contract for communication services
through commercial services. However, it is believed that most part 135
certificate holders already have facilities and communications
equipment that satisfy the dispatch requirements under part 121.
The FAA believes that there is a need for a two-way air-ground
radio communication system that will ensure reliable and rapid
communications over the entire route between each airplane and the
appropriate dispatch office and between each airplane and the
appropriate air traffic control unit. The need to show that each
operator has a two-way radio system is not new. However, the
requirement to have an independent system is new for operations of
affected commuters and intrastate Alaska and Hawaii operations
previously conducted under flag operations rules. While no commenters
focus on Sec. 121.97 or Sec. 121.117, the FAA
[[Page 65853]]
points out under Secs. 121.97(b)(4)(i) and 121.117(b)(4)(i) affected
operators will be required to comply with airport data requirements
which include applicable performance requirements of Subpart I. For
affected airplanes these performance requirements will be found in new
appendix K to part 121 as referenced in subpart I.
VI.A.2. Subpart F--Approval of Routes: Approval of Areas and Routes for
Supplemental Air Carriers and Commercial Operators
This subpart is similar to subpart E except that it applies to
supplemental operations and prescribes flight following requirements.
Under the proposal, this subpart would apply in cases where an affected
operator uses an airplane that is also used in domestic operations to
conduct a nonscheduled operation. On this issue, no comments were
received and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
VI.A.3. Subpart G--Manual Requirements
Manual requirements: Contents and personnel: Under subpart G of
part 121 certificate holders are required to prepare and keep current a
manual containing policies, procedures, applicable regulations, and
other information necessary to allow crewmembers and ground personnel
to conduct the operations properly (see Sec. 121.133 and Sec. 121.135).
While the requirements of parts 121 and 135 are similar, part 121
manual requirements contain a more extensive list of manual contents
(Sec. 121.135). Under part 121 the manual or appropriate parts must
also be furnished to more personnel, such as aircraft dispatchers and
flight attendants, and made available to others, such as station
agents. Notice 95-5 stated that the effect of these differences between
compliance with part 121 versus compliance with part 135 would be
significant for commuter operators. The proposal would require
developing, producing, and distributing new manuals appropriate to part
121. In addition, Sec. 121.137 requires the air carrier to issue a
manual or appropriate parts to each crewmember and requires each
crewmember to keep the manual up to date and have it with him or her
when performing assigned duties. Part 135 does not require that flight
attendants be issued a manual; however, it does require that any person
to whom a manual is issued must keep it up-to-date (see Sec. 135.21).
Comments: Fairchild Aircraft states that Sec. 121.137 would require
at least one copy of the manual specified by Sec. 121.133 to be carried
in the airplane and that this is a reasonable proposal that they fully
support. Fairchild Aircraft also states that Sec. 121.141(b)(2)
contains a reference to ``rotorcraft'' which should be deleted.
ALPA states that the key to an efficient, safe airline operation
can normally be found in the manuals developed by the airline. ALPA
supports the FAA in adopting all facets of Subpart G. ALPA also states
that Sec. 121.135(b)(2) should be amended by removing, ``in the case of
supplemental air carriers and commercial operators,'' so that the
paragraph reads: ``Duties . . . of the ground organization, and
management personnel.'' According to ALPA, the requirement to include
in the manual duties and responsibilities of management personnel would
no longer be applicable only to supplemental and commercial operators
since proposed part 119 requires management personnel for all
certificate holders.
One commenter states that Sec. 121.133 should require compliance
with the certificate holder's manuals.
Metro International Airways states that the cost of new manuals
would be excessive for small businesses and that an outline of
procedures would be a more useful reference than a highly detailed
manual.
FAA Response: All but one of the comments received regarding the
manual requirements support the implementation of Subpart G of part
121. Only one comment regarding the costs associated with the manuals
required by Sec. 121.131 was received.
Additionally, the FAA has received requests from certificate
holders that would like to begin the process of transition prior to
implementation of the rule. This would allow those certificate holders
to spread the cost of manual production and distribution over a longer
period of time. The question of phased-in-implementation is not unique
to this issue and is addressed elsewhere in this document.
The FAA agrees with ALPA's suggestion to revise the wording of
Sec. 121.135(b)(2). This is not a substantive change from Notice 95-5
because Sec. 119.65(e) also requires that manuals contain the duties
and responsibilities of required management personnel. The FAA also
agrees with Fairchild's suggestion to delete the word ``rotorcraft''
from Sec. 121.141(b)(2). These recommendations are appropriate. In the
final rule Secs. 121.135(b)(2) and 121.141(b)(2) are revised
accordingly.
In response to the comment that Sec. 121.133 should require
compliance with the certificate holder's manual, the holder of an air
carrier certificate with operations specifications to operate under
part 121 must comply with the regulations in part 121 (and other
applicable regulations). Requirements for preparing and maintaining a
manual serve the purpose of supplying information to personnel.
Information in the manual must be accurate and consistent with the
regulations. Since the manual may also include company policy and
guidance to personnel, all portions of the manual are not enforceable
as regulations. The language of the manual requirements does, however,
imply that the certificate holder must adhere to all of the contents of
the manual and that the certificate holder's personnel must use the
manual in conducting operations.
In response to the comment that the manual requirements will be a
burden for small businesses and that an outline of procedures would be
more helpful to personnel, small certificate holders are already
meeting the manual requirements of part 135; this rulemaking requires
an update of manuals and broader distribution of the manuals. An
outline of procedures could be used as guidance in addition to the
manuals or as part of a manual, but under current part 135 it would not
suffice as meeting the manual requirements.
In the final rule Sec. 121.133 has been revised to update the
terminology.
VI.A.4. Subpart H--Airplane Requirements
For comments and FAA responses to the requirements in Sec. 121.157,
Aircraft certification and equipment requirements, see the discussion
in Section V. C., Aircraft Certification.
Single-engine airplanes. Section 121.159 prohibits operation of
single-engine airplanes under part 121. No change to this prohibition
was proposed since the FAA does not consider single-engine airplanes
acceptable to part 121 standards. Under the proposal, this section was
amended to delete an obsolete reference to Sec. 121.9. No comments were
received on this issue and the final rule is adopted as proposed. For a
related discussion on the operation of single-engine Otters, see
``Applicability: Alaska,'' in Section V.B.
Airplane limitations: Type of route. Section 121.161(a) requires
that a two-engine or three-engine airplane except a three-engine
turbine powered airplane must be within 1-hour flying time from an
adequate airport at normal cruising speed with one engine inoperative,
unless otherwise approved by the Administrator. Part 135 does not
contain a comparable requirement; however, the FAA proposed that
[[Page 65854]]
affected commuters would comply with the requirements of
Sec. 121.161(a).
Section 121.161(b) contains a separate requirement that (with some
exceptions for certain older airplanes) no person may operate a land
plane in extended overwater operations unless it is certificated or
approved as adequate for ditching. The FAA proposed that affected
commuters would also comply with the requirements of Sec. 121.161(b).
In Notice 95-5, the FAA invited specific comments on the potential
impact of these proposals on operations in Alaska.
Comments: Several comments were received on the Sec. 121.161(a)
requirement to be within 1 hour of an airport with one engine
inoperative. One commenter suggests that Sec. 121.161 be rewritten to
reflect today's environment, since no airport in the U.S. is more than
1 hour away for these commuter airplanes. The commenter also states
that the rule should specify the requirements for two-engine operations
over the water.
Fairchild and AIA both state that Sec. 121.161(a) would require
single-engine cruising speed data and this data is unlikely to be
included in some Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM). The commenters also
state that there appears to be no safety benefit and it will be
difficult to show compliance. According to these commenters, the final
rule should except 10-30 passenger seat airplanes.
Phoenix Air anticipates that its operations with a Grumman G-159
Gulfstream airplane would be disrupted due to the requirements of
Sec. 121.161, since they intend to start service between Honolulu and
Midway Island. There are no airports that would be within 1 hour of the
intended flight path.
Jetstream concurs with the requirement that airplane routes should
be within 1 hour of an adequate airport.
Three comments were received on the certification ditching
requirements of Sec. 121.161(b). Fairchild and AIA note an apparent
oversight in that the FAA did not propose to exclude part 23 Normal or
Commuter Category airplanes from the ditching requirements of
Sec. 121.161(b).
AACA notes that several certificate holders fly affected aircraft
on extended overwater routes in Alaska. Compliance with the part 25
ditching requirements would add certification costs, impose equipment
weight penalties, and reduce payloads. According to the commenter, the
FAA did not calculate these costs. The commenter supplies information
indicating that costs to comply with the ditching requirements of part
25 are substantial.
FAA Response: Despite the comments to the contrary, the FAA has
decided to adopt its proposal to apply the route limitation
requirements of Sec. 121.161(a) to the 10- to 30-seat airplanes
operated by the affected commuters. Under that section any route flown
by a twin engine commuter type airplane must be flown so that it is
within 1 hour of an adequate airport for landing. Part 121 and its
predecessor regulations have applied route limitation requirements to
airplanes operating under those requirements since 1936. While the
specific details of the route limitation requirement have changed over
the years, the underlying safety issue has not; the certificate holder
must show, before operating affected airplanes over a route, that it
can safely continue flight in an emergency situation to an airport
adequate for landing. The FAA understands that some of these airplanes
will require an AFM revision that will provide engine-out cruise speed
data. There are routes in areas outside of the contiguous U.S. that are
more than 1 hour flying time (with one engine inoperative) from an
adequate airport. In accordance with Sec. 121.161(a), the Administrator
may authorize a deviation from the requirement, if the operator can
show that the 1-hour flight time limit is not necessary based on the
character of the terrain, the kind of operation, or the performance of
the airplane. Obtaining authorization to conduct extended range
operations with two-engine airplanes is dependent upon many factors.
Some of these factors are a type design review of the airframe system,
a review of the in-service history of the airplane propulsion system,
and an assessment of the certificate holder's maintenance and
inspection program capability for extended range operations. Advisory
Circular 120-42 provides the guidelines for this authority. Other rules
provide the requirements for extended overwater routes.
The Douglas DC-3 and Curtiss C-46 airplanes excluded from
Sec. 121.161(b) were type certificated and manufactured before the
present standards of part 25 were adopted. These aircraft were excluded
because of their previous operating experience which showed, in some
cases through actual ditchings, that these old airplanes could ditch
satisfactorily. The Convair 240, 340, and 440 and Martin 404 airplanes
were also type certificated before the present standards were adopted.
They were excluded because tests conducted by the National Advisory
Committee for Aviation showed they would have excellent ditching
characteristics. Unlike current part 25, part 23 contains no standards
for ditching approval. Unlike those older airplanes excluded in
Sec. 121.161, none of the part 23 airplanes have been shown to comply
with any ditching standards. Contrary to the commenter's assumption,
requiring part 23 airplanes used in extended overwater operations to
meet the ditching certification requirements was not an oversight. In
Notice 95-5 preamble, the FAA concluded that these requirements should
be applied to the operations that would be moved from part 135 to part
121.
After considering the comments, the FAA has determined that until
15 years after the date of publication of the final rule a certificate
holder may operate in an extended overwater operation a nontransport
category land airplane type certificated after December 31, 1964, that
was not certificated for ditching under the ditching provisions of part
25 of this chapter. Section 121.161(c) has been added accordingly.
Proving tests. Section 121.163 provides proving test requirements
for part 121. In addition to aircraft certification tests, an aircraft
to be operated under part 121 must have at least 100 hours of proving
tests for an airplane not previously proven for use in part 121
operations, and 50 hours of proving tests for an airplane previously
proven for use in part 121 operations. The number of hours may be
reduced by the Administrator. Section 135.145 requires 25 hours of
proving tests in addition to certification tests for certificate
holders that operate turbojet airplanes or airplanes for which two
pilots are required for operations under VFR if that airplane or an
airplane of the same make and similar design has not been previously
proved in any operations under part 135. Both Secs. 135.145 and 121.163
require proving tests for materially altered airplanes. However, under
Sec. 121.163, proving tests apply to each airplane to be operated under
part 121. Under part 135 proving tests apply to each aircraft or to
aircraft of similar make and design. Part 121 also describes three
types of proving tests. Under part 121, the initial operator of a type
of airplane must conduct at least 100 hours of proving tests,
acceptable to the FAA, which can be reduced in appropriate
circumstances. Moreover, for each kind of operation (e.g., domestic,
flag, supplemental) that a certificate holder conducts, 50 hours of
proving tests are required, which are reducible in appropriate
circumstances.
Comments: Six substantive comments were received. Comair and RAA
concur with the requirement for an air carrier
[[Page 65855]]
to demonstrate its ability to perform in accordance with part 121 and
company procedures. However, Comair proposes that carriers currently
conducting operations under part 121 and part 135 (split certificates)
should not be required to conduct this demonstration. Carriers
conducting part 121 and part 135 operations have previously proven
their ability to conduct part 121 operations. If the requirement for
dispatching is adopted, flight crewmembers will demonstrate their
proficiency with the new system during their required line check.
RAA comments that proving flight hours should be reduced based on
``experience and performance'' factors. To facilitate a reduction in
flight hours, the FAA should identify those specific procedures for
which non-revenue proving flights would be required and specify a
realistic number of flights or flight hours which would be sufficient
to demonstrate those procedures.
ASA believes that the requirement for proving flights will result
in an increase in both initial and recurring costs. United Express
joins ASA in proposing that FAA recognize the experience level of air
carriers operating under part 135 and permit proving tests to be
conducted during revenue service. United Express further proposes that
the required number of hours be reduced for those carriers currently
using a dispatch system.
Big Sky Airlines recommends a waiver of the requirement for a
proving test for airlines that have a good safety record and proven
experience. The commenter justifies its recommendation on the basis of
excessive and unnecessary burden and cost.
Commuter Air Technology requests clarification concerning which
modifications to specific aircraft would require 100-hour initial
proving tests.
FAA Response: Section 121.163 has two main parts. Paragraph (a)
prohibits a carrier from operating an aircraft type in scheduled
service that has never been used in scheduled service until it has
flown 100 hours of proving flights. These hours are in addition to any
aircraft certification tests. For the purposes of this rulemaking, the
FAA recognizes that the current commuter fleet has established a
sufficient history of operations and does not intend to require the 100
hours of proving flights for aircraft currently being operated by those
carriers affected by this rulemaking. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 121.163
requires 50 hours of tests for the carrier to show that not only can it
operate and maintain the aircraft, but also that it has the ability to
conduct a particular kind of operation (i.e., domestic or flag) in
compliance with the applicable regulatory standards.
The FAA agrees that carriers currently conducting operations under
both part 121 and part 135 (split certificates) will be eligible to
apply for a reduction of the number of hours required to conduct the
demonstration required by paragraph (b). In regard to the comment that
flight crewmembers that are new to part 121 operations will demonstrate
their proficiency during accomplishment of a line check, the FAA does
not agree that this could take the place of proving flights. The
primary focus of proving flights is not simply to test the proficiency
of flight crewmembers but to test the company's operational control
procedures for the airplanes that will be operated in accordance with
the requirements for a new kind of operation, i.e., flag or domestic.
The FAA supports the idea that proving flight hours should be reduced
based on ``experience and performance'' factors. The FAA has begun to
identify those specific procedures for which proving flights would be
required and to specify a realistic number of flights or flight hours
which would be sufficient to demonstrate those procedures. This
guidance to FAA inspectors will be provided in a revision to Order
8400.10.
The FAA agrees that proving tests will require an expenditure of
the carrier's financial resources. Safety requires these proving tests
to determine that an operator can conduct operations under part 121
safely, using new procedures, dispatches, etc. The FAA recognizes the
experience level of air carriers operating under part 135 and, based on
the carrier's experience with part 121, will provide FSDO inspectors
with written guidance on approving deviations from the requirements of
Sec. 121.163. The FAA believes that proving tests are an essential part
of the certification process and also provide the carrier with an
opportunity to do some ``dry-runs'' before beginning revenue service
under a completely new set of regulatory standards. The FAA's intent is
to provide inspectors with the authority to provide deviations from the
proving test requirements. FAA Headquarters will review each proposed
reduction of proving test hours and will concur or not concur with the
proposed number of hours for each affected commuter.
In response to Commuter Air Technology's request for clarification
concerning which modifications to specific aircraft would require 100
hour initial proving tests, Sec. 121.163(d) contains criteria for when
a type of aircraft is considered to be materially altered in design.
VI.A.5. Subpart I--Airplane Performance Operating Limitations.
Subpart I contains airplane performance operating limitations that
apply to all part 121 certificate holders; however, not every section
in subpart I applies to every certificate holder. For example,
Secs. 121.175 through 121.187 apply to reciprocating engine-powered
transport category airplanes and Secs. 121.189 through 121.197 apply to
turbine engine-powered transport category airplanes (with an exception
for certain reciprocating-powered airplanes that have been converted to
turbo-propeller-powered). Sections 121.199 through 121.205 apply to
nontransport category airplanes.
In part 121 the term ``nontransport category airplane'' is
currently used to refer to older airplanes like the Curtis C-46, that
were type certificated before the transport category was established,
i.e., the early 1940's. However, many airplanes type certificated over
the last 20 years used by affected commuters (e.g., commuter category
and SFAR 41 airplanes and predecessor categories), are also
nontransport category. Therefore, the FAA proposed to delete the term
``transport category'' throughout subpart I and to include language
where appropriate to except airplanes type certificated before January
1, 1965, that were not certificated in the transport category. This
would have the effect of requiring airplanes type certificated in the
commuter category or a commuter category predecessor to be operated
under the performance operating limitations of Secs. 121.175 through
121.197, as applicable.
Comments: ALPA states that all requirements of part 121 subpart I
should be complied with by all turbo-propeller airplanes with a
passenger capacity of 10 or more.
AACA concurs that airplanes with 10 to 19 seats should be required
to comply with all of the proposed modifications (in Table 1 of Notice
95-5) except for part 121 performance and obstruction clearance and
floor proximity lighting. (See later discussion of floor proximity
lighting.)
Jetstream, RAA and ALPA support the overall proposals concerning
the higher level of performance requirements. However, they join with
Commuter Air Technology, Raytheon and an individual to point out that
additional performance data/charts would need to be developed (for
example: accelerate-stop and obstacle clearance data). RAA also
recommends a 2-year time frame instead of the proposed 1-year
performance compliance date.
[[Page 65856]]
Jetstream states that Notice 95-5, in conjunction with other
proposed rules and changes, will introduce more weight to the aircraft.
In addition to this, AC 120-27D, Aircraft Weight and Balance Control,
will increase standard average passenger weights used for calculations.
The combined effect is that these aircraft will no longer be allowed to
carry 19 passengers due to reduced payload capacity. According to the
commenter, the combined effect of the weight changes is about two
passengers.
Jetstream and Raytheon comment that current FAA policy should be
revised to allow manufacturers to increase the maximum takeoff weights
for aircraft certificated under SFAR 41. They justify their comments by
stating that the increase in maximum takeoff weight will provide a
mitigation of the additional equipment weights incurred under this
rulemaking.
One commenter states that better weight and balance control by the
FAA is necessary because many operators are flying over maximum weight.
Fairchild, Jetstream, and AIA propose that the FAA incorporate the
language of Sec. 135.181(a)(2) into Sec. 121.191, which would provide,
in their view, a more conservative approach to one engine inoperative
enroute operations. Jetstream also notes that there is no requirement
for commuter airplanes to show Net En Route Flight Path data in their
AFM's.
One commenter suggests that part 121 be written to specify the
exact performance requirements for nontransport category airplanes to
be included in their performance manuals so there would be no confusion
with other FAA performance requirements.
Fairchild and AIA suggest deleting all references to ``transport
category'' in Secs. 121.189 through 121.197.
FAA Response: Section 121.135(b) requires that the manual contain
methods and procedures for maintaining the aircraft weight and center
of gravity within approved limits. Approved weight and balance control
procedures are the only means for an operator/applicant to authorize
the use of other than known weights for crew, passengers, baggage, or
cargo. The weight and balance control program, including loading
schedules and charts, are approved on operations specifications by the
FAA. This program must be included in the operator/applicant's policies
and procedures manual.
Section 121.189(c)(1) states, for turbine engine powered takeoff
limitations, that ``(c) No person operating a turbine engine powered
category airplane certificated after August 29, 1959, may take off that
airplane at a weight greater than that listed in the Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM) at which compliance with the following may be shown: (1)
The accelerate-stop distance must not exceed the length of the runway
plus the length of any stopway.''
The FAA agrees that new or additional performance data would need
to be developed for certain airplanes, and that this data would need to
be acceptable to the FAA Aircraft Certification Office and incorporated
into the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). At the present time, some AFM's
(for Beech 99, certain Metroliners, and the Twin Otter) do not have
accelerate-stop distance data, only accelerate-slow data. In order for
the airplane operator to comply with Sec. 121.189(c)(1), the operators
would have to request an AFM supplement from the airplane manufacturers
showing this required data. The FAA has not required the manufacturers
to develop this data. If they have developed the data, it would still
have to be certificated by the FAA as a revision to the AFM. If the
manufacturer does not have accelerate-stop data, it will have to flight
test, simulate, or analytically prove accelerate-stop distance data to
the FAA. This process could be expensive to the operators who would pay
for the manufacturer's support.
This rulemaking does not require the affected airplanes that are
currently in service or airplanes that will be manufactured under an
existing type certificate to meet the engine-out climb gradient
performance required by part 25. These airplanes will, however, be
required to meet the obstacle clearance limitations of
Sec. 121.189(d)(2).
Section 121.189(d)(2) states for turbine engine powered takeoff
limitations, that ``(d) No person operating a turbine engine powered
category airplane may take off that airplane at a weight greater than
that listed in the Airplane Flight Manual--(2) In the case of an
airplane certificated after September 30, 1958, that allows a net
takeoff flight path that clears all obstacles either by a height of at
least 35 feet vertically, or by at least 200 feet horizontally within
the airport boundaries and by at least 300 feet horizontally after
passing the boundaries.'' AFM's for some older airplanes with seating
capacity of 10-to-19 passengers do not have data to show the required
climb gradient or the certification basis to clear obstacles after
takeoff with an engine-out at a specified weight. As one commenter
suggests, additional certification requirements would have to be
identified in part 121 or in a new Appendix to 121 for nontransport
category airplanes, except for the commuter category or SFAR 41, ICAO
Annex 8 airplanes, before these airplanes could comply with
Sec. 121.189(d)(2) requirements.
As with accelerate-stop data, the FAA agrees that new or additional
performance obstacle clearance data for certain airplanes would need to
be developed, and that this data would need to be approved by an FAA
Aircraft Certification Office and incorporated into the Aircraft Flight
Manual. Raytheon estimates that to provide obstacle clearance data,
testing would have to be done on all Beech 99 models and the price per
each airplane for the new performance data would be $63,000 ($53,000
for the Beech 1300). This cost must be incurred by the manufacturer and
then passed on to all the operators.
The FAA recognizes the significant problems in developing the
necessary performance data for airplanes type certificated under a wide
range of standards over the past 30 years, including part 23 (or its
predecessor, part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations) normal category, plus
additional standards in the form of special conditions, SFAR 23, SFAR
41C, or part 135, appendix A, or part 23 commuter category. Development
of the additional performance data for airplanes certificated under
older standards may be developed by conducting actual flight tests,
data analysis, or any other methods acceptable to the Aircraft
Certification Office. The FAA believes that the performance
requirements of Sec. 121.189(d)(2), obstacle clearance with an engine-
out after takeoff, contribute to an increased level of passenger and
crew safety.
The FAA also understands that the requirements for accelerate-stop
and obstruction clearance may, in fact, remove certain airplanes from
service in part 121. It may also affect the operational capability of
some operators, depending on the location and height of obstacles, and
may terminate air carrier service to some communities if airplanes are
removed from service.
Because of the difficulty that affected commuters would face in
meeting the part 121 performance operating limitations with their
existing fleet, the FAA has decided to provide delayed compliance for
these requirements. Subpart I has been amended to state different
requirements for aircraft used by affected commuters that were
certificated under different certification standards, as follows:
1. Airplanes certificated under commuter category can meet all of
the
[[Page 65857]]
airplane performance requirements of part 121 within 15 months of the
publication of the final rule.
2. Airplanes certificated under SFAR 41 or earlier certification
standards will be allowed to continue to comply with the part 135
Subpart I and other airplane performance operating limitations
requirements for 15 years. The FAA anticipates that some of the SFAR 41
airplanes will be able to meet the part 121 requirements within the 15-
year period so they have the choice of either continuing to operate
under the performance requirements of part 135 for the 15-year
compliance period or complying with the performance requirements of
part 121 during the 15-year compliance period. Some of the airplanes
certificated under earlier certification standards, such as under part
135, Appendix A, part 23, with special conditions, and SFAR's 23 and
41C, will probably never be able to meet the part 121 standards. For
affected commuters operating these airplanes, the 15-year period allows
the operators sufficient time to plan for and obtain replacement
airplanes or to modify them.
Although the FAA encourages affected commuters to comply with the
performance operating requirements earlier than 15 years after
publication of the final rule, it is allowing that length of time to
ensure that there will be an adequate supply of replacement airplanes
available for purchase. The current rate of production of new commuter
category airplanes is approximately 30 per year. But most importantly,
if the FAA were to impose a shorter compliance period and affected
commuters were not able to obtain new airplanes from manufacturers,
they might replace their equipment with airplanes configured for fewer
than 10 passengers. This airplane group is not covered by this
rulemaking and has a higher accident rate than the 10-19 passenger
airplanes. Therefore, an unintended effect of this rule could be an
increase in the accident rate.
In response to Jet Stream's comment, current FAA policy prohibits
revisions to airplanes certificated under SFAR 41 that would increase
the maximum weight or the number of passengers. This SFAR was
terminated on September 13, 1983.
While the FAA understands that some of the older airplanes (i.e.,
normal category predecessors of commuter category airplanes) may not be
able to meet certain performance requirements, the FAA has determined
that some performance requirements, such as the maintaining of an
altitude with an engine-out, are important safety enhancements that
provide for a higher level of safety. This level of safety required in
part 121 should be available to all passengers flown on carriers
operating under part 121.
Section 121.191 requires that the AFM show a one-engine inoperative
net en route flight path which would provide a positive slope at an
altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the terrain (2,000 feet in
mountainous terrain) within 5 statute miles of the intended track.
Section 121.191 also provides for a net flight path that would allow
continued flight from the cruising altitude to an airport clearing all
terrain and obstructions. Section 135.181(a)(2) requires airplanes to
maintain a 50 feet per minute rate of climb when operating at the MEAs
or 5,000 feet MSL whichever is higher. It does not provide for the
continuation of the flight below the MEA.
Section 121.191 has continuously provided for safe engine out en
route operations while allowing some flexibility. The flexibility
allows the certificate holder to calculate maximum weights for
maintaining a constant engine out altitude, a continuous flight path
drift down to an airport when an altitude cannot be maintained, and
provides off airways direct routing engine out performance
requirements. The FAA understands that net en route flight path data
must be provided by the manufacturer; however, the FAA believes that
part 121 air carriers deserve the additional flexibility of
Sec. 121.191 and that commuters adopting the Sec. 121.191 requirements
may gain a flexible benefit with a continued higher level of safety.
In response to comments, the FAA points out that Notice 95-5
proposed to remove the words ``transport category'' wherever they
appear in subpart I.
In reviewing part 121 to resolve comments, the FAA noted that
several formulas are printed incorrectly. In the rate of climb formula
for reciprocating engine powered transport category airplanes
certificated under parts other than part 4a of the Civil Air
Regulations (CAR), the parentheses are misplaced. This formula has been
printed correctly in the corresponding part 135 section of Sec. 135.371
(a) and (c)(1). Also, in the rate-of-climb formula for transport
category airplanes certificated under CAR 4a [Sec. 121.181 (a) and
(c)(1) and Sec. 121.183 (a)(2) and (c)(1)] it is not clear as printed
that the subscript So is to be squared. Appropriate corrections
are made to both formulas.
VI.A.6 Subpart J--Special Airworthiness Requirements
Internal doors. Section 121.217 prescribes that in any case where
internal doors are equipped with louvers or other ventilating means,
there must be a means convenient to the crew for closing the flow of
air through the door when necessary.
Comments: Raytheon Aircraft states that a new toilet installation
for the 1900D has internal partitions with permanently open louvers.
Compliance with Sec. 121.217 would require Raytheon to redesign the
partition louvers so a crewmember could leave his or her station to
close the louvers when necessary or design the louvers for remote
control closure.
FAA Response: Contrary to the commenter's assumption, the lavatory
partition louvers in the commenter's airplanes would not have to be
redesigned. As stated in Sec. 121.213 (a) and (b), Sec. 121.217 applies
only to airplanes type certificated under Aero Bulletin 7A or part 04
of the Civil Air Regulations.
Cargo carried in the passenger compartment. Section 121.285
requires that cargo carried in passenger compartments must be stowed in
a fully enclosed bin or carried aft of a bulkhead or divider and
properly restrained. Section 135.87 allows certificate holders to carry
cargo in an approved cargo compartment instead of a fully enclosed bin
and to carry restrained cargo anywhere in the passenger compartment if
it is restrained by a net that meets the requirements of
Sec. 23.787(e). The FAA proposed to amend Sec. 121.285 to add an
exception for commuter category (and predecessor) airplanes that would
have the effect of allowing cargo to be carried in the passenger
compartment as it is today under part 135.
Comments: AACA, an association of Alaskan air carriers, fully
supports the proposal.
FAA Response: The final rule includes provisions from Sec. 135.87
that have been moved into Sec. 121.285 for nontransport category
airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964.
Landing gear aural warning device. Section 121.289 contains a
requirement for a landing gear aural warning device for large
airplanes. At present this section applies to any airplane with a
maximum certificated takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds.
Appendix A of part 135 requires a landing gear warning device for
airplanes having retractable landing gear and wing flaps, but the
device need not be aural. The FAA considers that the cost of replacing
a warning light with a warning sound
[[Page 65858]]
would be minimal. Therefore, this section would apply to any airplane
that presently operates under part 135 and that would be required by
this final rule to operate under part 121. To allow adequate time for
airplanes without aural warning devices to be retrofitted, the FAA
proposed a compliance date of 2 years after the publication date of the
final rule.
Comments: Raytheon comments that their models all provide aural
landing gear warning.
AACA notes that the FAA did not prepare a cost analysis for this
proposal, other than to show that the cost would be ``minimal.'' AACA
shows that various manufacturers' comments on similar proposals have
identified substantial administrative, engineering, installation, and
ongoing maintenance cost. However, AACA also notes that, in this case,
Fairchild Aircraft believes that the landing gear aural warning can be
installed without undue cost or difficulty.
AACA also states that once an item is installed, there are many
other things that must be done that involve cost. Cost items identified
are: revisions of the certificate holder's training program, normal and
emergency procedures, maintenance MEL's and other items need to be
amended to reflect the change from a visible lighted warning device to
an aural device. According to AACA, compliance costs add up
incrementally to substantial cumulative cost and that the FAA fails to
account for.
FAA Response: Even though part 23 requires an ``aural or equally
effective device,'' the FAA is not aware of airplanes where the
``equally effective device'' was accepted as the only warning for the
landing gear warning. The reason for not accepting such devices
includes the consideration of pilot's work load during the landing
phase of flight and the need for the warning to attract pilot attention
under such conditions. No proposed lighted device, by itself, has been
found acceptable to provide the needed warning for this flight
condition. Therefore, the FAA is amending Sec. 121.289 as proposed to
require installation of a landing gear aural warning device within 2
years of the publication of this final rule. However, the FAA believes
that all affected airplanes already have an aural warning system.
Emergency evacuation and ditching demonstrations. Section 121.291
contains requirements for conducting demonstrations of airplane
evacuation and ditching procedures. The FAA requires these
demonstrations upon introduction of a new type and model of airplane
into passenger-carrying operations. For airplanes with a seating
capacity of more than 44 passengers, an actual evacuation demonstration
must show that the full capacity of the airplane and the crewmembers
can be evacuated within 90 seconds. Also, for airplanes with more than
44 passenger seats a partial demonstration is required under one of the
circumstances described in Sec. 121.291(b). Demonstrations have not
been required for airplanes with fewer than 44 passenger seats.
Under Sec. 121.291(d) any certificate holder operating or proposing
to operate one or more landplanes of any size in extended overwater
operations must conduct a simulated ditching in accordance with
Appendix D to part 121. The purpose of the ditching demonstration is to
show that the certificate holder's ditching training and procedures for
a new type and model of airplane are satisfactory. The simulated
ditching does not specifically require the use of flight attendants;
the FAA proposed to apply this rule to any affected commuter operator
who conducts extended overwater operations, whether or not flight
attendants are used in the operation. The FAA proposed to apply this
provision to the affected commuter operators only when a new type and
model of airplane is introduced into the certificate holder's
operations after the effective date of the final rule. This requirement
does not apply to the current fleet.
The FAA proposed to amend Sec. 121.291(b) to clarify that the
partial demonstration procedures apply only to airplanes with more than
44 passenger seats.
Comments: With respect to partial evacuation, one commenter states
that the proposed rule would reduce the safety requirements for
commuters because the evacuation procedures under part 121 do not apply
to airplanes with less than 44 seats and that Sec. 23.803 requires a
demonstration for commuter category airplanes. One commenter states
that Sec. 121.291(b) does not indicate if the requirement applies to
aircraft with more than 44 seats or all aircraft.
Two commenters recommend clarifying the rule language for the
ditching demonstration in Sec. 121.291(d) to make the FAA's intent
clear. The commenters say that the current language does not properly
communicate the fact that a ditching demonstration would be required
only if an airplane is a new make/model for a particular certificate
holder's fleet.
FAA Response: Parts 25 and 121 currently require emergency
evacuation demonstrations for transport category airplanes with more
than 44 passenger seats. These demonstrations are required in addition
to specific detail design requirements, e.g. aisle width, exit size,
exit slides, etc., and are conducted to confirm the overall evacuation
capability of the airplane. They are also conducted to show the
adequacy of the operator's evacuation procedures. Considering the
specific detail design requirements with which transport category
airplanes must also comply, the FAA has not found it necessary to
require such evacuation demonstrations for airplanes having 44 or fewer
passenger seats. Since part 135 does not pertain to operations with
airplanes having more than 44 passenger seats, there has been no need
to require an emergency evacuation demonstration in that part. Part 23,
on the other hand, does not contain the same specific detail design
requirements for commuter or predecessor normal category airplanes.
Therefore, an evacuation demonstration is required for type
certification of those airplanes in lieu of the specific detail design
requirements that transport category airplanes must meet. There will be
no reduction in safety because transport category airplanes will still
be required to comply with the same specific detail design requirements
and the part 23 requirement for an evacuation demonstration will remain
unchanged. As proposed, Sec. 121.291(b) is amended to make clear that
it, as well as Sec. 121.291(a), only applies to airplanes with more
than 44 passenger seats.
The FAA agrees that the language in Sec. 121.291(d) for the
ditching requirement does not clearly state that it applies to the
affected commuters only if an airplane is a new type and model
introduced after they began operations under part 121. Therefore,
clarifying language is added to Sec. 121.291(d).
New special airworthiness requirements (retrofit) and requirements
applicable to future manufactured airplanes:
Ditching emergency exits. Section 25.807(e) contains
requirements for ditching emergency exits in transport category
airplanes. The ditching exits for transport category airplanes with 10
or more passenger seats must meet at least the dimensions of a Type III
passenger emergency exit (20 inches wide by 36 inches high). It should
be noted that transport category airplanes are required to have
ditching exits meeting those criteria regardless of whether the
airplane is approved for
[[Page 65859]]
ditching and used in extended overwater operations. If ditching
approval is requested by the applicant, it also must be shown that the
required life rafts can be launched successfully through the ditching
emergency exits.
Part 23, as recently amended by Amendment 23-46 (59 FR 25772; May
17, 1994), now contains requirements for ditching exits; however, all
of the normal or commuter category airplanes currently in service were
type certificated before that amendment became effective. The FAA
proposed to amend part 121 (proposed new Sec. 121.293(a)) to require
ditching exits for nontransport category airplanes type certificated
after December 31, 1964. Unlike those required for transport category
airplanes, the ditching exits would only have to be as large as those
currently required by Sec. 23.807(b) (19 inch by 26 inch ellipses). The
FAA proposed that compliance would be required 2 years after the
publication date of the final rule. The proposed requirement would not
entail adding new exits. The overwing exits of most airplanes type
certificated under part 23 would probably qualify as ditching exits.
Part 25 airplanes intended for non-part 121 transportation sometimes
comply by providing a sheet metal dam that can be installed in the
passenger entry doorway. If it is necessary to consider a floor-level
exit as a ditching exit in a nontransport category airplane, a similar
sheet metal dam could be provided.
Comments: Commuter Air Technology, a modifier of business airplanes
for commuter airline service, states that its product has overwing
exits that would be usable anytime the airplane was floating. The
commenter questions whether it would be necessary to conduct a $5,000
type certification effort to qualify those exits as ditching emergency
exits. NATA, an association representing certificate holders of 10- to
19-passenger-seat airplanes, recommends rescinding the proposal and
asserts that the cost of compliance would be extremely high. The
commenter offers no specific details concerning costs, but does note
that de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otters have experienced only three
ditchings in 17 million flight hours.
FAA Response: The comments received have some validity. The
majority of the current commuter fleet, at least those for which
ditching exits were not substantiated for certification, includes such
airplanes as the Beechcraft 99 and 1900 and Fairchild airplanes with
low wings and overwing exits. It is likely that these exits would
qualify as ditching emergency exits. However, they would have to be
tested. That would also be true of all other low-wing part 23 normal or
commuter category airplanes that would be operated under part 121.
In addition to the low-wing models, there are also three high-wing
normal or commuter category airplane models. These are de Havilland
DHC-6, Twin Otters, which are by far the most numerous of the high-wing
models, and the Dornier 228 and Britten Norman BN-2A Mk III
Trislanders. (This, of course, refers to landplanes. Many Twin Otters
operate as seaplanes on floats.) Typically, high-wing landplanes come
to rest in the water on the fuselage with one wing tip in the water.
The DHC-6 Series 100 and 200 airplanes have emergency exits in the
top of the fuselage forward of the wing. These exits also meet the
ditching emergency exit requirements. The DHC-6 Series 300 airplanes do
not have such overhead exits; instead they depend entirely on the
emergency exits in the sides of the fuselage. In almost three decades
of service with Twin Otters, there have been two ditchings. One
involving a Series 100 airplane occurred in the Pacific Ocean during a
ferry flight from Long Beach, California, to Honolulu, Hawaii. Another,
involving a Series 300, occurred in the Arctic. In both instances, all
occupants were evacuated safely. In the latter case, the occupants
escaped through the exits on the highest side. The FAA is not aware of
any ditchings of Trislanders or Dornier 228 airplanes; however, because
the Dornier 228 and the Trislander are so similar in design to the DHC-
6, it is likely that they would float the same way that the Series 300
airplane did, and that their exits would also meet the ditching
emergency exit requirements.
Most of the part 23 commuter and predecessor normal category
airplanes are low-wing airplanes with overwing exits that would comply
with no further substantiation required. The vast majority of the
airplanes would, therefore, not be affected by the requirement in
regard to either cost or safety benefit because they already comply. In
view of the successful ditchings that have occurred with high wing
airplanes to date, the FAA has decided not to adopt Sec. 121.293(a) as
proposed.
Takeoff warning system. Section 25.703 requires an aural
warning to the flightcrew at the beginning of the takeoff roll when the
wing flaps, leading edge devices, wing spoilers, speed brakes, and
longitudinal trim devices are not in a position that would allow a safe
takeoff. Part 23 does not require a takeoff warning system (although a
requirement for such a system is proposed in Notice No. 94-21, 59 FR
37620, July 22, 1994); in addition, part 23 airplanes typically do not
have multiple types of devices. Accidents have occurred on transport
category airplanes when the flightcrews initiated takeoffs when the
airplanes were not in the proper configurations for takeoff. The FAA
proposed that airplanes manufactured after a date 4 years after the
publication date of the final rule would be required to have a takeoff
warning system as required by Sec. 25.703. However, a warning system is
not required for any device for which it can be demonstrated that
takeoff with that device in the most adverse position would not create
a hazardous condition (Sec. 121.293(b)).
Comments: One commenter notes that a takeoff warning would not be
required under Sec. 25.703 if it is demonstrated that a takeoff with
that device in the most adverse position would not create a hazardous
condition. This commenter questions how one can measure the effect of
these improper settings when compounded by other unfavorable
conditions, such as weight and balance mistakes, but does not express
support or opposition to the proposal.
Commuter Air Technology discusses the longitudinal trim and flap
systems on its airplanes. The commenter notes that the pilot can
visually verify that the flaps are in correct 40 deg. takeoff setting
from the cockpit. The commenter also states that the longitudinal trim
is manual and has center marking visible from both the pilot and co-
pilot positions. The commenter's position is that the additional cost
of such a system is not warranted.
FAA Response: The first commenter correctly notes that a takeoff
warning system is not required for any devices if it is demonstrated
that takeoffs with that device in the most adverse position would not
cause an unsafe condition. While the FAA agrees that with some
airplanes it is possible to verify visually flap positions and manual
trims and that there is a cost to install warnings, the FAA has
determined that for safety reasons, an aural warning is needed under
the conditions described.
In considering these comments, the FAA notes that all of the in-
service airplanes have demonstrated, by their service histories, that
there is no device position that would cause an unsafe condition and
therefore that there would be no need for installation of additional
takeoff warning devices. While proposed Sec. 121.293(b) (now
Sec. 121.293) does not apply to any in-service airplanes affected by
this rule, the requirement for airplanes
[[Page 65860]]
manufactured 4 years after the publication date of this rule is
retained in the final rule to ensure that future airplanes are covered.
VI.A.7. Subpart K--Instrument and Equipment Requirements.
Instrument and equipment requirements are contained in part 121,
subpart K, and part 135, subpart C. The requirements are in addition to
the airplane and equipment requirements of part 91. The discussion
below emphasizes all new or revised equipment requirements except for
major equipment such as FDR's and airborne weather radar, which are
previously discussed in the ``Major Issues'' section of this document.
Notice 95-5 proposed to require that commuter operators comply with
part 121 airplane and equipment requirements except in areas that were
specifically discussed.
Sections 121.303, 121.305, and 121.307 require certain airplane
instruments and equipment. Some of the part 121 equipment is required
under part 135 only for IFR, VFR over-the-top, and VFR night
operations. Most of the airplanes used by affected commuters already
have these instruments as well as equipment required under part 135
(Secs. 135.143 and 135.149). Under the proposal this equipment in these
part 121 sections would be required for all part 121 operations.
Third Attitude Indicators. Section 121.305(j) currently requires a
third attitude indicator on large turbojet-powered and large turboprop
powered airplanes. Notice 95-5 proposed to apply this requirement to
airplanes that would be operating under part 121 as a result of this
rulemaking.
Comments: Most of the commenters on this issue oppose the
requirement, primarily because of the cost.
According to RAA, part 121 does not include an equivalent to
Sec. 135.163(h), which requires dual attitude indicators which are
powered by two different and independent power sources for nontransport
category airplanes. RAA recommends r
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
equiring the third attitude
indicator only for new production large airplanes, deleting the
proposed retrofit requirement, and incorporating Sec. 135.163(h) into
part 121 for nontransport category airplanes. RAA also recommends
considering an equivalent means of compliance for large nontransport
category airplanes, such as ``Situation Awareness for Safety'' devices.
Raytheon Aircraft and Mesa state that the requirement is excessive
for airplanes that already have two attitude indicators, each supplied
by a separate source of power. Raytheon and Big Sky are concerned that
the requirement might necessitate a redesign of the instrument panel.
Twin Otter International believes the requirement would be
extremely costly with little safety benefit. According to Twin Otter,
even if the attitude indicator were lost, the airplane would have
adequate performance and information to be operated without a third
attitude indicator.
Commuter Air Technology concurs with the proposal for all aircraft
operated under part 121 and points out that Sec. 135.149 currently
requires a third indicator only for turbojet aircraft.
United Express states that the FAA supporting data for a third
(independently powered) attitude gyro is based on turbojet accident/
incident research and not on turbopropeller accident/incident data.
According to the commenter, until the FAA can substantiate that this
will prevent accident recurrence in turbopropeller aircraft, it should
not be required. The commenter states that some aircraft, such as the
commenter's fleet of Jetstream turboprops, have a third attitude gyro
powered by the aircraft battery system. No information has been
provided, that the commenter is aware of, suggesting that an
independent power source will improve safety or accident statistics in
turbopropeller aircraft.
FAA Response: Section 121.305(j) currently requires a third
attitude indicator on large turbojet-powered and large turboprop-
powered airplanes. Part 135 requires a third attitude indicator only
for turbojet powered airplanes.
The FAA's intent as stated in Notice 95-5 was to require all
affected airplanes to comply with the equipment requirements of
Sec. 121.305 including the requirement for a third attitude indicator.
The notice did not contain amendatory language to Sec. 121.305(j);
however, to be consistent with the FAA's stated intent, the rule
language has been developed to include the intended airplanes and to
provide a compliance date.
In response to RAA's comment that part 121 does not have an
equivalent to Sec. 135.163(h), which requires two independent sources
of energy, each of which is able to drive all gyroscopic instruments,
such an equivalent appears in Sec. 121.313(e).
The FAA does not agree with the commenter that a third attitude
indicator is excessive for airplanes that have two attitude indicators
or that there could be little safety benefit. The final rule requires a
third attitude indicator in all turbojet powered airplanes and all
turbopropeller powered airplanes. However, the FAA recognizes that
retrofit installation of a third attitude indicator imposes a burden
which may require a redesign of the instrument panel. Therefore, as
with certain other requirements, the final rule provides for a 15-year
compliance date for turbopropeller powered airplanes having a passenger
seating configuration of 10 to 30 seats that were manufactured before
15 months after the date of publication of this final rule. In effect,
this allows operators to decide whether to retrofit these airplanes or
phase them out. Turbojet airplanes and newly manufactured turboprop
airplanes must comply within 15 months.
Lavatory fire protection. Section 121.308 currently requires
lavatory smoke detection systems, or equivalent, and automatically
discharging fire extinguishers in lavatory receptacles for towels,
paper, or waste for passenger-carrying transport category airplanes.
The FAA proposed to apply the requirements of Sec. 121.308 to airplanes
formerly operated under part 135 that are equipped with lavatories.
Section 121.308 would be amended to delete the references to transport
category. The proposed compliance section, Sec. 121.2, required that
lavatory protection equipment be installed within 2 years after the
publication date of the final rule.
Comments: ALPA believes that the FAA should require installation of
the smoke detection system within 6 months of the effective date rather
than 1 year as proposed. This commenter also believes that installation
of the lavatory fire suppression system should be required in all
airplanes newly manufactured within 1 year of the effective date rather
than 2 years as proposed.
ASA and RAA do not object to compliance insofar as new airplanes
are concerned, but do suggest that the requirement be deleted as a
retrofit requirement. These two commenters state that the industry
estimated cost of compliance is $2,500 per airplane while Jetstream
estimates $4,000 per airplane.
Comair believes compliance would amount to $2,500 and 20 pounds per
airplane. The commenter asserts that compliance is not justified for
airplanes with 20 to 30 passenger seats due to the small size of the
cabin, proximity of a trained flight attendant with a portable fire
extinguisher, and the present smoking ban on domestic flights.
Commuter Air Technology asks whether the proposed requirement would
apply to some of their products
[[Page 65861]]
that have a side facing toilet separated from the cabin only by a
curtain.
Jetstream states that there is no evidence to support the
introduction of fire suppression of toilet receptacles on commuter
aircraft. According to the commenter, the lavatory receptacles are
already designed to contain a fire within the compartment; and, due to
the small cabin size of those airplanes, the lavatory is readily
accessible to the crew if the need to suppress a fire does occur. The
commenter estimates a cost of $4,000 per airplane. Nevertheless, the
commenter does support requiring new aircraft to comply.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the commenter's
suggestion that installation of smoke detectors should be done within 6
months and fire extinguishers within 1 year of the publication of the
final rule. This would not allow sufficient time for compliance.
The comments received do not contradict the FAA's understanding
that few, if any, of the airplanes with 10 to 19 passenger seats are
equipped with lavatories. The primary impact of the proposed
requirement for lavatory smoke detection and fire extinguishment,
therefore, would be on airplanes with 20 to 30 passenger seats
presently operated under part 135. (Any such airplanes currently
operated under part 121 are already required to comply.)
Contrary to one commenter's belief, the present smoking ban on
domestic flights does not eliminate the need for lavatory smoke
detection and fire extinguishment. On the contrary, the smoking ban
could increase the temptation for some passengers to smoke illicitly in
the lavatory and thereby increase the possibility of a fire originating
in that compartment. The presence of a smoke detector serves as a
deterrent to illicit smoking as well as a means of warning when it does
occur.
Contrary to the commenter's belief, the presence of a flight
attendant in the cabin would not compensate for the lack of a lavatory
smoke detector and fire extinguisher. A lavatory is designed with an
effective ventilation system to preclude normal odors from entering the
cabin. In the absence of a smoke detector, the ventilation systems also
precludes early detection of illicit smoking or a fire by persons in
the cabin. In addition, the materials typically contained in the waste
receptacles are highly flammable and could burn out of control quickly
if there were no automatically discharging extinguishers. It is
possible that a flight attendant would not know the fire exists until
it has grown to catastrophic proportions.
The cost estimates provided by two commenters appear to be based on
a misunderstanding concerning the qualifications of a required lavatory
smoke detector. Such detectors serve primarily to enhance the
capability of crewmembers to detect lavatory fires visually. They are,
therefore, not required to meet all of the performance and
environmental requirements applicable to primary detectors used in
isolated compartments, such as cargo compartments. Anything that meets
the ordinary dictionary definition of a lavatory would be covered by
this requirement.
Therefore, because the adverse service experience that prompted the
adoption of Sec. 121.308 applies equally to any airplane, large or
small, with a lavatory and because the commenters' cost estimates are
obviously based on a misunderstanding of the required smoke detector
qualification, the FAA is adopting this requirement in substance as
proposed. The final rule has been revised to provide operators 2 years
from the date of publication to comply with the lavatory smoke detector
system and fire extinguisher requirements. In addition, the rule states
that operators of 10- to 19-seat airplanes that have a lavatory must
have a smoke detector system or equivalent that provides either a
warning light in the cockpit or an audio warning that can be readily
heard by the flightcrew. This will accommodate airplanes that do not
have flight attendants.
Emergency equipment inspection. Section 121.309(b) requires that
each item of emergency and flotation equipment must be inspected
regularly in accordance with inspection periods established in the
operations specifications to ensure its condition for continued
serviceability and immediate readiness to perform its intended
emergency purpose. Section 135.177(b) contains a similar requirement
for part 135 operators of airplanes with more than 19 seats. In this
section, the FAA proposed requiring affected commuter operations,
including those with airplanes of 10 to 19 seats, to comply with the
existing part 121 requirement. Other provisions in the proposal would
require affected commuters to install additional emergency equipment.
No comments were received on this issue and the final rule is adopted
as proposed.
Hand-held fire extinguishers. Sections 121.309(c) and 135.155
contain similar requirements for hand-held fire extinguishers aboard
airplanes. Part 121 requires at least two of the fire extinguishers to
contain Halon, or an equivalent, and mandates placement of the fire
extinguishers, while part 135 does not. In Notice 95-5, the FAA
proposed that affected commuters comply with the part 121 requirements
for fire extinguishers and that Sec. 121.309(c)(7) be amended to
require that at least one of the fire extinguishers in the passenger
compartment contain Halon or the equivalent. No comments were received
on this issue and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
First aid kits and medical kits. Section 121.309(d) requires that
both approved first aid kits and approved emergency medical kits be
carried on board passenger-carrying airplanes. The medical kits are
intended to be used only by medically qualified persons, such as
doctors, who may be on board the airplane. Section 135.177(a)(1)
requires first aid kits to be carried on board airplanes with more than
19 passengers.
The FAA proposed that first aid kits be required for all airplanes
with more than 9 passenger seats operating under part 121 and medical
kits be required for airplanes that are required to have a flight
attendant. The FAA stated in Notice 95-5 that, after review of the
comments, the FAA might decide to require a medical kit for all 10-19
seat airplanes.
In Notice 95-5 the FAA pointed out that affected commuters would
have to comply with a recent rule requiring disposable latex gloves for
first aid kits and medical kits.
Comments: Six commenters disagree with the proposed requirement to
have first aid kits on 10- to 19-seat airplanes. Most of the commenters
cite lack of space and the lack of necessity for the equipment.
Commenters believe that the first aid kit would not provide enough of a
medical benefit to justify its cost. Two of these commenters oppose the
addition of latex gloves as part of the first aid kit. One commenter
believes that the equipment would place additional liability on
employees. One commenter concurs with both proposed requirements.
Two commenters provide additional cost information for first aid
kits. One of the commenters estimates $1,500 per airplane and the other
estimates $1,500 without specifying the number of entities involved
(i.e., airplane(s) or fleet).
AACA agrees with the requirement for first aid kits on all commuter
airplanes whether a flight attendant is available or not. According to
the commenter, regardless of the size of the airplane, inflight
emergencies could occur and a first aid kit may be needed. In the
[[Page 65862]]
absence of a flight attendant, a crewmember or passenger could use the
first aid kit. The commenter also estimates costs of $4,359 for Alaskan
commuter air carriers in the first year and $436 each year thereafter
to meet the requirement, but there is no explanation of the detail.
Four commenters disagree with the required medical kits on 20 to 30
seat airplanes. These commenters cite lack of space and the lack of
necessity for the equipment. Three commenters argue that medical kits
should not be required on airplanes with less than 30 seats due to the
lack of trained personnel and the low likelihood that a medical
professional would be on board. One commenter believes that the
equipment would place additional liability on employees. One commenter
concurs with the proposed requirements.
One commenter provides a cost estimate of about $2,000 per airplane
for the medical kit requirement. However, the cost estimate is not
supported by any documentation.
FAA Response: The FAA maintains that certain of these requirements
are necessary to enhance safety. The ability to respond in the early
stages of a medical emergency is critical and could save lives in the
event of an in-flight injury or an accident. Additionally, the FAA
maintains that latex gloves as were required by a 1994 rule change (59
FR 55208, November 4, 1994) should be included in these first aid kits
because they guard against transmission of disease through spilled
blood. In sum, no commenter provides any compelling reason to eliminate
the first aid kit requirement, especially considering that these
airplanes often operate in remote areas where medical assistance may
not be available. The FAA has determined that emergency medical kits
will be required for airplanes requiring a flight attendant. For
airplanes not having a flight attendant, requiring a medical kit poses
problems, such as a lack of security, no one to monitor the use of the
kit, and no one to check the credentials of a person who professes to
be a doctor and able to administer the medical treatment.
The regulations allow flexibility in the location and mounting
methods of kits. Depending on the weight of the kit and Velcro surface
area, Velcro may be sufficient. Even if Velcro is not practical in a
particular instance, other low-cost alternatives, such as leather
straps with buckles, are acceptable.
Crash ax. Section 121.309(e) requires that each airplane be
equipped with a crash ax, while Sec. 135.177 requires a crash ax for
airplanes with a passenger seating configuration of more than 19
passengers. Under part 135 the crash ax is to be accessible to the crew
but inaccessible to the passengers during normal operations. The FAA
proposed in Sec. 121.309(e) to require a crash ax for each airplane
that has a flight deck separate from the passenger cabin and a lockable
door.
Comments: One commenter disagrees with the FAA assertion in Notice
95-5 that the crash ax is useful only for egress from the flight deck
to the cabin in the event of an emergency. The commenter says that the
Airplane Flight Manual of one popular 19-seat commuter airplane
suggests that preparation for certain gear-up landings include opening
an overwing exit inflight, because even relatively minor distortion of
the fuselage in a small airplane can render exits unusable. Thus, the
crash ax could be used for prying open an exit.
Raytheon states that if a key lock is required as proposed on
lockable doors in 10- to 19-seat airplanes, then a crash ax would be
required. The commenter states that removal of the door would eliminate
the requirements for a lock and a crash ax.
A third commenter supports the proposal as written in Notice 95-5
to require a crash ax only in airplanes that have a separate flight
deck with a lockable door.
FAA Response: The primary purpose in requiring that a crash ax be
carried is to allow emergency egress after an accident if airplane
exits are unuseable. However, the FAA agrees with commenters that there
could be other uses for the ax including egress of the cockpit crew.
After considering the comments and reviewing the proposed
requirement, the FAA has determined not to require crash axes on
nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31,
1964, primarily because these airplanes are not required to have a
lockable door. The FAA has determined that the lockable doors that
exist in nontransport category airplanes type certificated after
December 31, 1964, are frangible and obviate the need for a crash ax on
the flight deck. Also carrying a crash ax in these airplanes creates a
security risk since the ax would not be inaccessible to passengers.
Emergency evacuation lighting and marking requirements. Section
121.310(c), by referencing Sec. 25.812(e), requires emergency
evacuation lighting for passengers when all sources of illumination
more than 4 feet above the floor are totally obscured. This requirement
applies to all transport category airplanes regardless of how many
passenger seats they have. There is no corresponding requirement in
part 23 or in part 135 for airplanes having a passenger-seating
configuration of less than 20 seats.
Section 121.310(d) for emergency light operation requires that each
light required by paragraphs (c) and (h) must be operable manually and
must operate automatically from the independent lighting system. As
proposed, these requirements would apply to affected commuters. In
Sec. 121.310(d)(2)(i) each light must be operable manually both from
the flightcrew station and from a point in the passenger compartment
that is readily accessible to a normal flight attendant seat.
Section 121.310(e) requires that an exit operating handle may not
be used if its brightness decreases below a specified level. Section
135.178(e) contains an identical requirement for airplanes having a
passenger seating configuration of more than 19 seats. Under the
proposal the requirement would also apply to airplanes with a passenger
configuration of 10-19 seats.
Section 121.310(f) contains standards for access to various exit
types that presently apply only to transport category airplanes.
Section 135.178(f) is identical to Sec. 121.310(f) for airplanes having
a passenger configuration of more than 19 seats. The FAA proposed to
amend Sec. 121.310(f) to exclude nontransport category airplanes.
Section 121.310(g) (and its parallel requirement in Sec. 135.178(g)
for more than 19 passenger seat airplanes) requires emergency exits to
be marked on the outside by a 2-inch band contrasting in color with the
surrounding fuselage. Most airplanes with a passenger-seating
configuration of less than 20 seats operating under part 135 are
already required to meet this requirement and, for those that do not,
compliance with this requirement as proposed would merely require
painting the bands around each exit.
Section 121.310(h) requires airplanes for which the application for
type certification was made before May 1, 1972, to meet the exterior
emergency lighting standards of Sec. 25.812, in effect on April 30,
1972, or any later standards in effect if the application for type
certification was made later. The FAA proposed to require nontransport
category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, (i.e.,
part 23 normal and utility category) to comply with Sec. 25.812 in
effect April 30, 1972, within 2 years after the publication date of a
final rule.
The FAA proposed that airplanes with a passenger-seating
configuration of less than 20 seats previously operated under part 135
be required to comply with the above-described emergency
[[Page 65863]]
lighting systems (that is, emergency exit signs, interior lighting,
exit handles, and exterior lighting) and, except for the marking
requirement discussed above, proposed a compliance date 2 years after
the publication date of a final rule.
Comments: Sixteen comments were received on proposed Sec. 121.310.
All commenters oppose the proposal to retroactively require any
additional emergency exit signs or emergency lighting on 10-to-19
passenger seat commuter airplanes.
Several commenters state that the cost of retrofitting in-service
airplanes with an emergency lighting system would be much more
expensive than the FAA expected when the notice was prepared.
Six commenters note the size of the cabin area of these airplanes
and that no person is seated more than 8 feet (or two or three rows)
from an exit. One of these six also notes that no person is more than
12 feet from two exits.
Four commenters note that an emergency evacuation demonstration is
required for the certification of commuter category airplanes and that
these demonstrations have shown that the airplanes can be evacuated,
under conditions of total darkness, in less than 90 seconds. Two other
commenters note that there is no known service history or adverse
accident data related to commuter operations to support the need for
this proposal. Therefore, all six of these commenters believe there is
no justification for the proposal and each of them recommends that it
be withdrawn.
One commenter believes that the current briefing on exit locations
and their use is sufficient and that no further action is needed. Two
commenters believe that the requirement in Sec. 121.310(c)(3) to show
compliance with Sec. 25.812(e) does not add any safety to these
airplanes. They point out that the height of the ceiling in their
airplane is only 4\3/4\ feet high and question the need to comply with
the provision of Sec. 121.310, which requires compliance with
Sec. 25.812(e). Section 25.812(e) requires escape path markings for
passenger guidance, ``when all sources of illumination more than four
feet above the cabin aisle floor are totally obscured.'' According to
commenters, with a ceiling height of only 4\3/4\ feet, it is likely
that the required exit markings are located less than 4 feet above the
floor and that compliance with Sec. 121.310(c)(3) is not necessary.
Another commenter believes that the requirement in Sec. 25.812 for
emergency lighting to operate for 10 minutes is not needed for these
airplanes. The commenter points out that the required emergency
evacuation time for these airplanes is much less than 10 minutes and
that this requirement should be adjusted accordingly. One other
commenter suggests that flashlights be made available. Finally, two
commenters acknowledge that emergency lighting may enhance safety;
however, they also believe that this enhancement in safety can be
provided by a lighting system that is less expensive, less complex, and
much lighter than the one envisioned by Sec. 121.310. Accordingly, they
provide some suggestions for such a system.
Embraer, a foreign manufacturer of transport category airplanes,
believes that Sec. 121.310(f) should also be amended to exclude smaller
(e.g., 20 to 30 passenger) transport category airplanes as well as
nontransport category airplanes. The commenter believes that a
passenger seat would have to be removed from its product for operation
under part 121 if smaller transport category airplanes were not also
excluded from this section.
AACA supports the proposed amendment to Sec. 121.310(g).
The only other comment received concerning this issue was from an
individual who requests resolution of the issue of whether the 2-inch
wide contrasting band has to be on the fuselage surrounding the
emergency exit or on the exit itself.
FAA Response: Section 23.803 does require an emergency evacuation
demonstration, as noted by the commenters; however, the demonstration
is required primarily to compensate for the differences in evacuation
design features (e.g. aisle width, exit size, etc.) required by part 23
and those of part 25. Like the demonstrations required by part 25 for
airplanes with more than 44 passengers, the demonstrations are intended
to evaluate the evacuation capability of the airplane under standard
conditions and are not intended to show the evacuation capability of
the airplane under the most adverse condition that could be
encountered. They are not intended, for example, to demonstrate the
evacuation capability of the airplane when there is dense smoke in the
cabin or when there is hazardous, damaged structure in the vicinity.
The applicability of the required evacuation demonstrations to the need
for emergency lighting is therefore limited.
Passengers must egress rapidly in the event of fire. Contrary to
the commenters' assertions concerning a lack of adverse service
experience, the FAA is aware of at least six instances since 1980 in
which passengers had to be evacuated because of fire from such
nontransport category airplanes or transport category airplanes with
cabins of similar size. There is no doubt that safety can be enhanced
considerably by requiring compliance with the emergency lighting
requirements proposed in Notice 95-5. Nevertheless, the installation of
such lighting is very costly.
In response to excluding smaller airplanes from the requirements
pertaining to access to exits, Sec. 121.310(f)(2) states, in part, that
there must be enough space next to each Type I or Type II emergency
exit to allow a crewmember to assist in the evacuation of passengers
without reducing the unobstructed width of the passageway below that
required (20 inches wide). Part 135 contains the same requirement for
airplanes having a passenger seating capacity of more than 19 seats.
Since the commenter's product has more than 19 passenger seats and
numerous examples are already in service in this country, the airplanes
have presumably been shown to comply with either Sec. 135.178(f)(2) or
the identical text of Sec. 121.310(f)(2). Thus, this rulemaking would
not impose any new burden on airplanes with more than 19 passenger
seats.
Section 121.310(g) states that exterior exit markings ``must be a
2-inch wide colored band outlining each passenger exit on the side of
the fuselage.'' Since the band is outlining the exit it would be on the
fuselage, not on the exit.
After reviewing the costs and benefits associated with the proposed
emergency lighting requirements, the FAA has decided to revise the
final rule as follows:
1. The floor proximity lighting requirements in Sec. 121.310(c)
will apply to all airplanes except non-transport category airplanes
type certificated after December 31, 1964. In effect, this is not a
change from current requirements. Affected airplanes with 10 to 19
passenger seats will not have to comply because of the small cabin
size, the probability that passengers would be able to find the
emergency exits without floor lighting, and the high cost of
retrofitting for these requirements.
2. The interior light operation requirements of Sec. 121.310(d) do
not apply in the final rule to nontransport category airplanes
certificated after December 31, 1964, since the requirements of
Sec. 121.310 (c) and (h) apply only to transport category airplanes.
3. The requirement for an illuminated exit operating handle
(Sec. 121.310(e)) remains as proposed. The compliance date for retrofit
requirements for 10- to 19-seat airplanes is 2 years after publication
of the final rule.
[[Page 65864]]
4. Section 121.310(f) was proposed to apply to airplanes with a
passenger-seating configuration of more than 19 seats. This remains in
the final rule.
5. The requirement for marking emergency exits on the outside in
Sec. 121.310(g) remains as proposed since compliance is relatively
simple and inexpensive for all affected operators.
6. The exterior lighting standards in Sec. 121.310(h) are revised
to except nontransport airplanes type certificated after December 31,
1964..
Seatbacks. Section 121.311(e) prohibits a certificate holder from
taking off or landing unless passenger seats are in the upright
position. Section 135.117 requires only that passengers be briefed that
seats should be in the upright position. The FAA proposed that affected
commuters be required to comply with Sec. 121.311.
Comments: One commenter objects to the requirement because the
pilots cannot assure compliance in a 19-seat airplane, especially
during landing.
FAA Response: The FAA intended for those flights with flight
attendants to be operated in accordance with the current Sec. 121.311.
For these flights on nontransport airplanes type certificated after
December 31, 1964, the FAA has included wording to clarify that the
pilot must only instruct the passengers to place their seatbacks in the
upright position. The final rule has also been revised to add a new
subparagraph to Sec. 121.311(e) that provides that on an airplane with
no flight attendant, the certificate holder may take off or land as
long as the flightcrew instructs each passenger to place his or her
seatback in the upright position. This change is needed to clarify what
is required for airplanes that do not have a flight attendant.
Seat belt and shoulder harnesses on the flight deck. Section
121.311(f) requires a combined seat belt and shoulder harness with a
single-point release that meets the requirements of Sec. 25.785. Part
135 does not contain a requirement for a single-point release system
although the FAA believes that virtually all commuter category
airplanes being manufactured today have such a system. To ensure that
this is the case for newly manufactured airplanes, the FAA proposed in
Sec. 121.2(e)(1) to require that airplanes manufactured after 1 year
after publication of the final rule meet the requirements of
Sec. 121.311(f).
Comments: One commenter concurs with the proposal.
FAA Response: The final rule remains substantively as proposed,
except that compliance is within 15 months after publication of the
final rule. However, to clarify that Sec. 121.311(f) applies to newly
manufactured nontransport category airplanes, appropriate language is
added to that paragraph.
The final rule also revises Sec. 121.311(h) to allow crewmembers
for affected commuters to release the shoulder harness if they cannot
perform their duties otherwise.
Interior materials and passenger seat cushion flammability. Section
25.853(b) was amended in 1984 to require seat cushions to meet greatly
enhanced flammability standards. At the same time, Secs. 121.312(b) and
135.169(a) (but not for commuter category airplanes) were amended to
require airplanes already in service to meet the improved seat cushion
flammability standards after November 1987. In the years that have
passed since that date, the improved cushions are credited with saving
a number of passengers' lives.
The FAA proposed to require nontransport category airplanes type
certificated after December 31, 1964, to comply with the same seat
cushion flammability standards that apply to other airplanes operated
under part 121. The proposed compliance date was 2 years after the
publication date of the final rule or on the first replacement of the
cushions, whichever occurs first. The proposed rule also allowed for
granting deviations for up to 2 additional years when justified by
unique integral-seat cushion configurations.
The FAA also proposed that the interior components of nontransport
category airplanes manufactured after 4 years or more after the
publication date of the final rule must meet the same standards that
those components must meet when installed in transport category
airplanes with 19 or fewer passenger seats. Those standards, which
involve testing with Bunsen burners, are not to be confused with the
Ohio State University (OSU) radiant rate of heat release testing
required for large-surface-area components installed in airplanes with
20 or more passenger seats. (See proposed Sec. 121.2(e)(2)(ii).)
Comments: ALPA supports the proposed retroactive requirements,
including this proposal.
Fairchild and AIA present identically worded statements opposing
the proposed requirement that seat cushions would have to comply with
the flammability standards of Secs. 25.853(b) and 121.312(b). In that
regard, they state that they know of no evidence that compliance would
provide a significant safety benefit in 10 to 19 passenger airplanes.
They do not believe that compliance would delay the spread of a fire
enough to be an important factor in survival. In that regard, they note
that the seats in smaller airplanes tend to be lightweight and offer
relatively little mass of material to fuel a fire. Also, they believe
that cabin fires are less likely to occur because the small size of the
cabin restricts the amount of carry-on baggage and makes inappropriate
passenger activity less likely. Finally, they believe that the FAA
would have proposed such rulemaking already if warranted. NATA also
believes the higher flammability standards would not be effective in
smaller airplanes. That commenter asserts the cost of compliance would
be $20,000 per airplane.
Commuter Air Technology observes that the Beech King Air executive
airplanes they modify for commuter air service would not have to comply
in their original executive configuration because they have fewer than
ten seats, yet would have to comply as modified because they have more
than ten seats.
Big Sky Airlines and RAA suggest that the compliance period should
be extended to enable replacement during the routine seat replacement
cycle. One of these commenters quotes a compliance cost of $30,000 for
each 19 passenger airplane.
Mesa does not express support or opposition to the proposal, but
states that compliance would entail $12,000, 36 pounds, and 10 hours
for a Beech 1900C, or $3,400, 38 pounds, and 10 hours for either a
Beech 1900D or Jetstream 3100.
No comments were received concerning the proposal to require
commuter category airplanes produced four years or more after the
effective date to comply with the Bunsen burner test of part 25
(Sec. 25.853(a)). One commenter states that the installation of
interior materials complying with Sec. 25.853(c) would not improve the
level of safety of airplanes with 10 to 19 passenger seats.
FAA Response: The commenters focus on the cost of compliance and
the lack of a need for added fire protection in smaller airplanes.
In regard to costs, the commenters appear to have a misconception
concerning the scope of the rulemaking. The costs fall into one of two
categories--the cost of developing and testing suitable cushion
materials and the actual cost of replacing individual seat cushions. In
regard to the former, Sec. 25.853(c) does not require each seat cushion
to be tested, nor does it require each seat cushion design to be
tested. Instead it simply states that each cushion must meet the
flammability standards. An applicant has the option of utilizing a seat
cushion material that meets the flammability standards;
[[Page 65865]]
however, most choose to comply by using a covering material that
protects the cushion from the fire. (The latter are usually referred to
as ``fire-blocked seats.'') Individual seat cushions or individual seat
cushion designs do not have to be tested if they can be shown to meet
those standards by similarity to other cushions that have been tested
previously and found to meet the standards. Advisory Circular (AC)
25.853-1, Flammability Requirements for Aircraft Cushions, issued
September 17, 1986, provides guidance in that regard. In the years that
have passed since transport category airplanes used in part 121 or 135
service were first required to comply, many different possible seat
cushion designs have already been tested and found satisfactory. It is,
therefore, quite possible to utilize a seat cushion material or fire-
blocking material that has already been shown to comply with the
flammability standards. In that regard, many of the affected airlines
are affiliated with major airlines and have ready access to the same
means of compliance adopted several years earlier by those major
airlines.
Contrary to some commenters' beliefs, the use of seat cushions
meeting these flammability standards is quite effective in the cabins
of smaller airplanes. Some commenters note that the amount of cushion
material is relatively small in 10- to 19-passenger airplanes. While
the amount of cushion material in those airplanes is obviously much
less than that in larger airplanes, it represents approximately the
same portion of the total flammable material in those airplanes as in
the larger airplanes. In addition to representing a large portion of
the materials in the cabin that are flammable, the foam materials
typically used for seat cushions are, by far, the most flammable of all
the materials used in the cabin. A secondary, but no less significant,
benefit is that cushions meeting these flammability standards are much
less likely to ignite and sustain a flame than those that do not meet
the standard. Precluding a fire from occurring is obviously the best
possible form of fire protection.
The FAA conducted a series of 12 full-scale fire tests at its
Technical Center at Atlantic City, New Jersey, using the fuselage of a
Metroliner. The cabin of the Metroliner is typical of those of the part
23 Normal or Commuter Category airplanes with 10 to 19 passenger seats.
Under the test conditions, it was shown that using seat cushions
meeting these flammability standards, in lieu of the flammability
standards that would otherwise be applicable, would afford passengers
approximately 45 additional seconds in which to escape.
The primary benefit of having seat cushions that meet these
flammability standards is to afford occupants more time in which to
egress in a post-crash fire situation; however, such cushions also
provide additional protection should an inflight cabin fire occur.
Contrary to the beliefs of commenters in that regard, the FAA is aware
of at least six instances in which cabin fires have been experienced
since 1980 in nontransport category airplanes or transport category
airplanes with cabins of similar size.
In their recommendation A-88-96, the National Transportation Board
(NTSB) recommended the use of fire-blocking materials on seats in part
23 normal and commuter category airplanes. Fairchild, AIA, and others
state that the fact that the FAA has not previously adopted seat
cushion flammability standards for those airplanes is evidence that
they would not result in a significant improvement in safety. The FAA
has, in fact, initiated separate rulemaking in that regard (Notice No.
93-71, 58 FR 38028, July 14, 1993).
The intent of Notice 95-5 was to mitigate the cost by allowing
compliance to coincide with the normal wear replacement cycles. Since
compliance can be achieved whenever the seat cushions or seat coverings
are being replaced due to normal wear, the cost of compliance for each
seat is just the additional cost of including the fire-blocking layer
along with the covering.
Based on the above, the FAA has decided to adopt the seat cushion
flammability standards of Sec. 121.312(c), but to allow a compliance
period of 15 years after the publication date of this rule. The FAA
felt that the immediate cost of this retrofit would have negatively
affected the industry. By allowing up to 15 years, it should be
possible for all replacements to be scheduled within normal replacement
cycles. An additional benefit of a 15-year compliance period is that
certificate holders can coordinate their compliance with this section
with their plans for meeting other extended compliance times, i.e.,
meeting the performance and accelerate-stop requirements and
installation of a third attitude indicator.
As noted above, the FAA also proposed that the interior
components of nontransport category airplanes newly manufactured 4
years or more after the publication date of the final rule must meet
the same standards that those components must meet when installed in
transport category airplanes with 19 or fewer passenger seats (i.e.
Bunsen burner testing). After reviewing the present requirements,
the FAA determined that the interior components of those airplanes
are already required to meet the same flammability standards for
type certification. Since the standards are identical, it is not
necessary to specify the flammability standards as an additional
requirement for newly manufactured airplanes. Section 121.312(a) has
been amended in the final rule to clarify the applicability of the
flammability standards to nontransport category airplanes used by
affected commuters.
Section 121.312 provides the interior material flammability
standards for airplanes operated under that part. As described above,
the substantive provisions of that section are being retained, and the
provisions applicable to airplanes being brought over from part 135 are
being incorporated. In this final rule, Sec. 121.312 is reorganized to
highlight the applicable provisions and to provide greater clarity; the
appropriate substantive text has been retained. Furthermore, appendix L
is being added to part 121 to explain the regulatory citations for the
part 25 provisions that have been superseded. Although those standards
are not current insofar as new type certification under part 25 is
concerned, they are referenced in part 121 and remain applicable for
compliance. The addition of appendix L only clarifies existing
requirements; therefore, it is adopted without prior notice and
comment.
Miscellaneous Equipment. Notice 95-5 specifically discussed the
proposal that would require affected commuters to comply with the
miscellaneous equipment requirements of Sec. 121.313(f) and (g).
However, although not specifically discussed in Notice 95-5,
Sec. 121.313(c) pertaining to a power supply and distributive system
would also be required.
Comments: Fairchild Aircraft notes that Sec. 121.313(c) requires a
power supply and distribution system that meets the requirements of six
sections of part 25. Because Sec. 121.313(c) does not assign an
effective date to this list of part 25 sections, Fairchild assumes that
it is the current version of each section that would be applicable.
Fairchild also questions whether all airplanes currently operated under
part 121 meet the current standards of part 25. Based on their
assumption that their airplanes would have to meet current sections of
part 25 and the fact that SFAR 23 and SFAR 41 airplanes do not meet
those requirements, Fairchild proposes amending Sec. 121.313(c) to
except nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December
31, 1964, from this requirement.
FAA Response: The commenter has correctly identified the sections
of part
[[Page 65866]]
25 that are listed in Sec. 121.313(c): however, the commenter has
apparently overlooked the alternative provisions contained in that
section. In part, Sec. 121.313(c) also reads: ``or that is able to
produce and distribute the load for the required instruments and
equipment * * * .'' This additional text of Sec. 121.313(c) allows the
use of a power supply and distribution system that performs this
function regardless of whether it complies with the listed sections of
part 25. The commenter's proposed amendment is not needed because
Sec. 121.313(c) already includes provisions for alternate means of
compliance. The commenter's products have already been shown to comply
with this alternative.
The commenter is correct in believing that some airplanes currently
operated in part 121 service might not meet the current sections of
part 25 listed in Sec. 121.313(c). The issue is moot, however, since
Sec. 121.313(c) provides for alternative means of compliance.
Cockpit doors and door keys. Section 121.313 (f) and (g) require
that there be a lockable door between the cockpit and the cabin and
that there be a key for each cockpit door that is readily available to
each crewmember. Part 135 does not have such requirements. The FAA
proposed that the affected commuters be required to comply with the
part 121 rules if there is a door with a lock or a door that can be
retrofitted with a lock. (Curtains or accordion doors are not
considered lockable doors.) If a lockable door already exists or can be
retrofitted, the certificate holder would be required to provide a
cockpit key that is readily available to each crewmember. Accordingly,
the language of Sec. 121.313(f) was changed to except nontransport
category airplanes certificated after December 31, 1964, without a
door. Transport category airplanes already are required to have a door
and a lock with a key.
Comments: Most of the comments received on this issue oppose the
requirement for a locking cockpit door and key. Several commenters say
that the cockpit door on EMB-120 airplanes cannot be locked when the
observer jumpseat is in use. These commenters are concerned that strict
adherence to the wording of the rule would require them to retrofit the
door, redesign the cabin, and probably remove a revenue seat, all at a
high cost. These commenters recommend that the EMB-120 be exempted from
the requirement when the observer jump seat is in use. One commenter
states that some nontransport category aircraft that will transition to
part 121 do not have a cockpit door lock and key and may not be able to
install one. One commenter states that operators will be required to
obtain a supplemental type certificate to retrofit airplane doors with
key locks. Another commenter states that this requirement would force
operators to choose between removing the high-quality cockpit door
installed at great expense on BE 1900D aircraft which provides
protection from cabin illumination glare during night operations, or
installing and using a lock on this door, both of which are contrary to
safety. One commenter states that the 1900C and 1900D airplanes have
frangible doors between the cockpit and cabin to reduce distractions.
According to the commenter, as proposed, the rule would require
installation of locks on those doors. Finally, one commenter says that
the wording of the cockpit door requirement should be clarified to
exclude 10 to 19 seat aircraft not yet produced. According to the
commenter, the proposal resolves the problem for existing 10-19 seat
airplanes. However, proposed Sec. 121.2(f) would require all new
airplanes to be certificated in transport category. The commenter
states that new 10-19 passenger airplanes will have the same problem as
existing nontransport category types; that is, cockpit doors will
neither be practical nor appropriate. The commenter recommends amending
Sec. 121.313(f) to read ``* * * except that airplanes type-certificated
for a maximum of 19 or fewer passengers are not required to comply with
this paragraph.''
AACA notes that the language of Sec. 121.313(f), which lists
required equipment for operating an aircraft, should be changed to
exclude airplanes that do not have cockpit doors.
FAA Response: The FAA maintains that the cockpit key and door lock
requirement should be retained to enhance aviation safety. However, the
final rule language is clarified to require compliance only for
airplanes with a passenger-seating configuration of 20 or more seats.
Therefore, the requirement for a door lock and cockpit key does not
apply to nontransport category airplanes type certificated after
December 31, 1964 even if the airplane has a cockpit door.
In response to the comments regarding the EMB-120, Sec. 121.587
allows for the door to remain open, if necessary, to provide access for
a person authorized admission to the flightcrew compartment. This
allows for the door to be open if the jump seat is in use by an
authorized person. Section 121.587 applies to large airplanes which
includes the EMB-120.
The FAA acknowledges that the commenters correctly state that
keyless locks in airplanes with a passenger seating configuration of 20
or more would have to be retrofitted to work with keys. Certificate
holders that would have to retrofit their door locks would incur a
higher cost to comply with the requirement. Yet, the FAA strongly
believes that keyless locks which only lock from the cockpit side pose
a severe safety hazard if the pilots become incapacitated. The FAA
maintains that an extended time period to retrofit locks is not
justified in light of the many other new requirements which are even
broader in scope.
Cargo and baggage compartments. Part 25 (as referenced in
Sec. 121.314) contains requirements for cargo or baggage compartment
liners, smoke detection, and fire extinguishment for various classes of
compartments. The compartment classification system, also duplicated in
Sec. 121.221 (which as previously discussed applies only to certain
airplanes type certificated before November 1, 1946), is based on the
compartment's accessibility for fire detection and extinguishment. Part
25 was amended in 1989 to require the liners of Class C and D
compartments to meet more stringent flammability standards. Section
121.314 was also adopted at that time to require the improved liners in
existing transport category airplanes on a retroactive basis.
Part 23 contains no classification system or requirements for
compartment fire protection; however, a proposed rule to add comparable
requirements was issued on July 22, 1994 (59 FR 37620). The FAA
proposed in Sec. 121.2(e)(2)(ii) by referencing Sec. 121.314 to require
this modification for commuter category (or its predecessor) airplanes
manufactured 4 years or more after the publication date of the final
rule. However, in Notice No. 95-5, the FAA did not propose to amend
Sec. 121.314, which currently applies only to transport category
airplanes.
Comments: Two commenters submitted identical comments concerning
this proposal. Both commenters believe that the cargo or baggage
compartment classification system of Sec. 25.857, referenced in
Sec. 121.314, is not suitable for smaller airplanes with fewer than 20
seats and that the smoke detector and fire extinguisher requirements
are unreasonable and unnecessary in those airplanes. In that regard,
they note that many commuter category airplanes are convertible from a
full passenger configuration with a relatively small baggage
compartment to combination passenger/cargo (combi) configurations
[[Page 65867]]
to cargo only. They do not believe that it is practical to modify any
of the combi configurations to comply with any of the cargo compartment
classes defined by Sec. 25.857. They assert there has been no history
of service problems indicating a need for such features.
No comments were received concerning compartments other than those
of combi airplanes. Also, no commenters responded to the request in the
preamble to Notice No. 95-5 for information concerning less-costly
alternatives such as requiring only liners and smoke detection.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the present requirements of
Sec. 25.857 are not entirely suitable for airplanes with a passenger
seating capacity of less than 20 and the FAA has initiated a rulemaking
project to develop and propose similar standards that would be suitable
for these airplanes. In view of this project the FAA has decided to
defer this proposal for future rulemaking.
Fuel tank access covers. As a result of the 1985 Manchester British
Air Tours accident (in which a piece of metal from the aircraft engine
punctured the fuel tank access panel and created a fire),
Sec. 25.963(e) was amended in 1989 to require that all covers located
in an area where a strike by foreign objects is likely must have as
much resistance to fire or debris penetration as the surrounding
structure. Concurrent with the part 25 amendment, Sec. 121.316 was
amended to require airplanes already in service to comply with
Sec. 25.963(e) on a retrofit basis. These requirements pertain to all
transport category, turbine-powered airplanes. Due to their smaller
size and turbo-propeller configuration, part 23 airplanes generally do
not present the same hazard. The FAA did not propose to require part 23
airplanes to comply with Secs. 25.963(e) and 121.316. Since
Sec. 121.316 applies only to ``turbine-powered transport category''
airplanes, no rule change is needed. The FAA points out that turbine-
powered transport category airplanes previously operated under part 135
would have to comply with Sec. 121.316.
Comments: Raytheon Corporation submitted comments on the costs of
complying with Sec. 25.963(e) for airplanes that in the future would be
required to be type certificated in the transport category under part
25.
FAA Response: As previously discussed, the applicability of all
present part 25 requirements to airplanes with a passenger seating
capacity in the 10-19 range for which a type certificate is applied for
after March 29, 1995, will be dealt with in a future rulemaking action.
Since Notice No. 95-5 did not propose any change for airplanes in
existence or for airplanes newly manufactured under existing type
certificates, this issue need not be discussed further in this
rulemaking.
Passenger information. Notice 95-5 proposed that affected commuters
would comply with the passenger information requirements in
Sec. 121.317. There was no preamble discussion of this section because
the FAA determined that current requirements for affected commuters in
Secs. 135.127 and 91.517 were substantively the same as those in
Sec. 121.317.
Comments: Three comments were received on this section. Commuter
Air Technology suggests that seatbelts should be worn the entire time
for flights of less than an hour and a half. According to the
commenter, requiring seatbelts at all times while engines are running
would provide better passenger safety, remove an unnecessary checklist
item from the flight station, and eliminate the probability of missing
a flight due to an inoperative sign. According to the commenter, each
seat could be placarded and the co-pilot could make a visual check of
passenger compliance after closing the door hatch prior to departure.
Two commenters state that Sec. 121.317(a) should be revised to
allow permanently lighted no-smoking signs or conspicuous placards,
since smoking is prohibited on all flights.
FAA Response: Section 121.317 sets minimum requirements. Both
Secs. 121.317 and 135.127 allow the use of no smoking placards that
meet the requirements of Sec. 25.1541 if the placards are posted during
the entire flight segment. Section 121.317(a) requires passenger
information signs (fasten seatbelt signs and no smoking signs) that the
pilots can turn on and off and Sec. 121.317(b) specifies when fasten
seatbelt signs must be turned on. To ensure that the present
requirements of Sec. 121.317 are not interpreted so as to prohibit the
use of placards in certain airplanes, a clarifying amendment is
included in the final rule. New Sec. 121.317(l) provides that a person
may operate a nontransport category airplane type certificated after
December 31, 1964, having a passenger-seating configuration of 10-19
seats manufactured before 15 months after the publication date of this
final rule if it is equipped with one placard that is legible to each
person seated in the cabin that states ``Fasten Seat Belt'' if the
flightcrew orally instructs the passengers to fasten their seatbelts at
the necessary times. Newly manufactured airplanes must comply with
lighted seat belt sign requirements of Sec. 121.317(a) within 2 years
after the date of publication of this final rule. In addition,
Sec. 121.317(d) requires one legible sign or placard that reads
``fasten seat belt while seated'' that is visible from each passenger
seat. Affected commuters must comply with Sec. 121.317(d) at the time
of recertification under part 121, or within 15 months, whichever
occurs first.
Instruments and equipment for operations at night. Section 121.323
requires two landing lights for night operations. Under the proposal,
the requirement would apply to all affected commuters. While no
comments were received on the proposal, the FAA had intended to revise
Sec. 121.323 to except nontransport category airplanes certificated
after December 31, 1964, from having more than one landing light. The
exception was intended because small airplanes with shorter wing spans
can be operated safely with only one landing light. The exception was
inadvertently omitted from Notice 95-5 but is included in the final
rule.
Oxygen requirements. Sections 121.327 through 121.335 cover
supplemental oxygen requirements and oxygen equipment requirements. The
requirements are similar to the oxygen requirements in Sec. 135.157
except that for certain airplanes, part 121 requires less oxygen. Each
affected commuter who would have to comply with part 121 oxygen
requirements as a result of this rulemaking should be able to operate
its airplanes in accordance with the oxygen requirements specified in
part 121.
Comments: Fairchild Aircraft comments that the first aid oxygen
requirements of Sec. 121.333(e)(3) are inappropriate for smaller
commuter service and that this section should be revised to exclude
airplanes with fewer than 20 seats. This commenter also asks that
Sec. 121.335 be revised to allow oxygen flow rates based on the
airplane's certification basis rather than Civil Air Regulation 4b.651.
Fairchild finds that this would avoid unnecessary complication and
expense.
FAA Response: In the case of first aid oxygen, since Notice 95-5
proposed no flight attendant for the 10- to 19-seat airplane, requiring
the first aid oxygen that would be dispensed by a flight attendant
would not be logical. Since the airplanes operated by the affected
commuters were not type certificated for flight above 25,000 feet and
since Sec. 121.333(e)(3) only applies to pressurized airplanes that
operate above 25,000 feet, it would not as a practical matter apply to
commuter (or predecessor) airplane operations. The requirement does
apply to airplanes
[[Page 65868]]
with 20 to 30 passenger seats, as proposed.
In the case of Sec. 121.335, the FAA finds that parts 23 and 25
provide standards for oxygen that either meet or exceed the standards
in section 4b.651 of the CAR. Section 4b.651 has a built in deviation
authority.
Portable oxygen for flight attendants. Section 121.333(d) requires
that each flight attendant shall, during flights above 25,000 feet,
carry portable oxygen equipment with at least a 15-minute supply of
oxygen, unless enough portable oxygen units with masks or spare outlets
and masks are distributed through the cabin to ensure immediate
availability of oxygen to each flight attendant regardless of his or
her location at the time of cabin depressurization. Part 135 does not
have a similar requirement for portable oxygen for flight attendants.
In Notice 95-5, the FAA proposed that affected commuters who use flight
attendants in their operations and that operate above 25,000 feet be
required to comply with the part 121 requirement. No comments were
received on this issue and the final rule is adopted as proposed. For a
related discussion on the use of oxygen, see the discussion under
``Oxygen Requirements.''
Protective breathing equipment (PBE). Section 121.337 contains
requirements for equipping the flight deck and passenger compartments
of transport category airplanes with PBE. Part 135 does not currently
require any type of PBE.
Section 121.337(b)(8) (smoke and fume protection) requires PBE,
either fixed or portable, to be conveniently located on the flight deck
and easily accessible for immediate use by each flight crewmember for
smoke or fume protection at his or her duty station. In addition,
Sec. 121.337(b)(9) (fire combatting) requires that for combatting fires
a portable PBE must be located on the flight deck with easy access by
each flight crewmember for fighting fires. Also portable PBE in the
passenger compartment must be located within 3 feet of each hand fire
extinguisher. Both of these requirements provide that the Administrator
may authorize another location if special circumstances exist that make
compliance impractical and the proposed deviation would provide an
equivalent level of safety.
The proposal required affected commuters to comply with the PBE
requirements of Sec. 121.337. To be in compliance, an airplane with a
passenger-seating configuration of 10 to 19 seats would have to have at
least three PBE: one PBE, fixed or portable, for each flight crewmember
at his or her station, and an additional portable PBE on the flight
deck for use in fighting fires. An airplane with a passenger-seating
configuration of 20 to 30 seats would have to have at least four PBE:
one PBE, fixed or portable, for each flight crewmember at his or her
station; an additional portable PBE on the flight deck for fighting
fires; and a portable PBE in the passenger compartment located within 3
feet of the required hand fire extinguisher.
The proposal revised the applicability of the current rule to
include other than transport category airplanes. Proposed
Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(iv) was also revised to except airplanes having a
passenger-seating configuration of fewer than 20 seats and a payload
capacity of 7,500 pounds or less from the requirement to have a PBE in
the passenger compartment. The exception is needed because these
airplanes are not required to have a flight attendant; for these
airplanes, the portable PBE on the flight deck could be used by a
flight crewmember for fighting a fire.
The FAA proposed to require compliance with Sec. 121.337 by a date
2 years after the publication date of the final rule. (See Sec. 121.2)
Comments: Several commenters oppose the PBE requirement. These
commenters are concerned about the lack of space in the plane, the high
compliance cost, and the lack of benefits in having the equipment.
These commenters state that PBE equipment on non-pressurized aircraft
is not justified. Two commenters claim that their current equipment
(built in oxygen supply systems and masks) ought to exempt them from
the PBE requirement. One commenter incorrectly believes that a PBE
would be required for the cabin on METRO aircraft (a 19 seat airplane).
One commenter suggests that in the interest of safety the FAA should
reduce the compliance time for PBE equipment to 6 months. Though
commenters provide cost estimates to install PBE on their airplanes,
costs are provided only for 10 to 19 seat airplanes, which would not be
required to have PBE in the cabin.
FAA Response: The FAA maintains that the proposed PBE requirement
for affected commuters is appropriate. There are several safety
benefits for requiring smoke and fume PBE. The use of smoke and fume
PBE required by Sec. 121.337(b)(8) would help prevent the injury or
death of flight crewmembers from smoke or harmful gases.
The FAA contends that there is adequate space in the cabin of 20-
to 30-seat commuter airplanes to accommodate portable PBE for fire
combatting, and no major cabin retrofits would be required. With regard
to firefighting PBE, the FAA has determined that such equipment is not
appropriate for operations with 10-19 passengers. There are no flight
attendants on these flights and the pilots generally remain on the
flight deck to operate the aircraft during an emergency. In an
emergency, passengers will have access to a fire extinguisher and will
be able to assist in extinguishing any flames within the cabin.
However, passengers are not trained in the use of fire combatting PBE
and would not know how to operate such equipment. Accordingly,
nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31,
1964, having a passenger-seating configuration of 10- to 19-seats are
excepted in the final rule from the requirements in Sec. 121.337(b)(9)
for having PBE's for combatting fires.
In response to other comments, the lack of a pressurized cockpit
does not diminish the need for PBE to enhance safety in case of fire,
nor can existing oxygen systems provide adequate protection for
fighting a fire. Approved PBE in the cabin must have a protective hood
and be fully mobile.
Due to the broad scope of this rulemaking action, certificate
holders will have to deal with many new requirements. Therefore, as
proposed, a consistent compliance period of 2 years is applied to all
affected airplanes for acquiring PBE.
Emergency equipment for extended overwater operations. Sections
121.339 and 135.167 require that airplanes engaged in extended
overwater operations (more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest
shoreline) provide the following: enough life rafts of a rated capacity
and buoyancy to accommodate the occupants of the airplane; a life
preserver equipped with an approved survivor locator light for each
occupant of the airplane; a pyrotechnic signaling device for each life
raft; a survival kit and a survival type emergency locator transmitter.
In addition, Sec. 121.339 requires that unless excess rafts of enough
capacity are provided, the buoyancy and seating capacity of the rafts
must accommodate all occupants of the airplane in the event of loss of
one raft of the largest rated capacity. In practice, this requirement
is typically met by carrying a spare raft of the largest rated
capacity.
The FAA proposed that the affected commuters that engage in
extended overwater operations should be required to meet the part 121
requirements. As with current part 121 certificate holders, affected
commuters can apply for deviations, and the FAA can decide, on
[[Page 65869]]
a case by case basis, if a deviation is appropriate. These deviations
are issued pursuant to Sec. 121.339(a) which permits the Administrator
to allow deviation from the requirement to carry certain equipment for
extended overwater operations. Since there are few extended overwater
operations conducted by commuters, the FAA does not expect this
proposed requirement to have a significant impact.
Comments: Four commenters argue against the requirement for a spare
life raft on commuter airplanes. One commenter says that the spare life
raft is not necessary because seats can be equipped with additional
life vest storage pouches. Another commenter says that the spare life
raft is appropriate for larger airplanes but not for 10 to 30 seat
aircraft. This commenter also suggests that the rule should remain as
presently written under Sec. 135.167, and, on a case-by-case basis, the
FAA can require certificate holders to obtain a spare life raft.
Another commenter states that spare life rafts should not be required
on aircraft with less than 20 passenger seats because the requirement
will increase operating costs and reduce passenger revenues. A fourth
commenter states that the cumulative weight, space, and compliance
costs will be significant for affected Alaskan operators and that these
costs cannot be spread across a large number of passenger seats as can
be done with a larger aircraft.
Three commenters state that the requirement in Sec. 91.205 (b)(11)
for a pyrotechnic signaling device is understandable for general
aviation aircraft, but is impractical and superfluous for airplanes
operating under part 121 in scheduled air carrier service. The
commenters recommend that Sec. 91.205 be revised to exclude airplanes
operating under part 121.
FAA Response: The FAA maintains that airplanes conducting extended
overwater flights need to carry enough life rafts to accommodate all
passengers in the event of the loss of the life raft with the largest
rated capacity. Such a requirement will enhance safety in the event of
an accident. Individual flotation devices are not adequate for safety
in the event of a water ditching because passengers tend to separate in
open water. A life raft enables passengers to stay together. An even
greater threat is hypothermia, a sequence of physical reactions
resulting from the loss of body heat. In cold water, a person will
experience increased difficulty with mobility and intense shivering
occurs. In arctic waterways, survival time can be as little as 2 or 3
minutes. Thus, a spare life raft is appropriate for affected commuters
to enhance passenger safety. The requirement in part 121 for equipping
each life raft with a pyrotechnic signaling device is identical to part
135 for extended overwater operations. The recommendation to except
scheduled air carriers from the provisions of Sec. 91.205(b)(11) is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, under Sec. 119.1(c)
persons subject to part 119 must comply with other requirements of this
chapter, except where those requirements are modified by or where
additional requirements are imposed by parts 119, 121, 125, or 135 of
this chapter. Therefore, the final rule requires commuter airplanes to
adhere to part 121 standards and provides deviation authority on a case
by case basis.
Flotation devices. Section 121.340 requires that a large airplane
in any overwater operation must be equipped with life preservers or
with an approved flotation means for each occupant. Because it is
practically impossible to operate any place without flying over a body
of water of sufficient depth to require some sort of flotation means,
Sec. 121.340 has been applied so that virtually every airplane is
equipped with either flotation cushions or life preservers. In parts
121 and 135, life preservers are required only for extended overwater
operations, (Secs. 121.339 and 135.167). Therefore, airplanes used in
extended overwater operations are already equipped with life preservers
and do not need to have flotation cushions.
The FAA proposed that airplanes equipped with 10 or more seats
operating in scheduled passenger operations would comply with
Sec. 121.340 and accordingly proposed revising the section to delete
the word ``large.'' To allow any replacement of seat cushions to be
coordinated with the seat cushion flammability requirements of
Sec. 121.312(c), the FAA proposed a compliance date of 2 years after
the publication date of the final rule.
Comments: The FAA received three comments that oppose the
requirement for flotation devices. One commenter opposes the
requirement because of the equipment cost and weight penalty. This
commenter determines that the seat cushions in the METRO aircraft would
not serve as effective flotation devices. The commenter provides a cost
estimate for acquiring and retrofitting individual flotation devices
for METRO airplanes. The commenter also states that each flotation
device for 10 to 30 seat airplanes would have to be equipped with an
approved survivor location light. A second commenter states that the
rule should allow exemptions for operations that do not fly over or
near large bodies of water. This commenter does not believe that
flotation devices would enhance safety. Finally, a third commenter
states that flotation devices are already required for extended
overwater flights for all airplanes by Sec. 91.205.
FAA Response: The FAA concurs that if the seat cushions in a
particular airplane model do not serve as flotation devices, then
individual flotation devices would have to be acquired. If life
preservers are provided as individual flotation devices they would have
to have an approved survivor locator light as required by
Sec. 121.339(a)(1).
The FAA found during previous rulemaking that all flights traverse
a body of water of at least 6 feet deep during the course of a year.
Therefore, individual flotation devices or life preservers for 10 to 30
seat airplanes are required on all flights. Section 121.340(b) contains
provisions for requesting an approval to operate without the flotation
means if the operator shows that the water over which the airplane is
to be operated is not of such size and depth that life preservers or
flotation devices would be needed for survival.
The FAA concurs with one of the commenters that Sec. 91.205
requires flotation devices for all airplanes involved in extended
overwater flights. Section 121.340 is clearly more restrictive.
Although the compliance date for meeting passenger seat cushion
flammability requirements has been extended to 15 years, the compliance
time of 2 years for providing flotation devices is the same as
proposed.
Equipment for operations in icing conditions. Section 121.341
requires certain equipment for operations in icing conditions. The
proposal would require affected operators to comply with this section.
In accordance with Sec. 121.341(b), to operate an airplane in icing
conditions at night, a wing ice light must be provided or another means
of determining the formation of ice on the parts of the wings that are
critical from the standpoint of ice accumulation. This would be a new
requirement for 10- to 19-passenger seat airplanes.
No comments were received on this proposal; however, the FAA has
determined that the requirements of Sec. 135.227 (c), (e), and (f) need
to be incorporated into Sec. 121.341 to accom
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
modate certain affected
airplanes. These requirements pertain to operating limitations for
flying into known icing
[[Page 65870]]
conditions if the airplane is not equipped for icing conditions. Thus
the final rule Sec. 121.341 incorporates the part 135 language.
Pitot heat indication system. Section 25.1326 requires a pitot heat
indication system to indicate to the flightcrew when a pitot heating
system is not operating. Part 23 currently requires pitot heat systems
for airplanes approved for IFR flight or flight in icing conditions,
but does not require pitot heat indicators. Section 121.342 currently
requires a pitot heat indication system on all airplanes that have
pitot heat systems installed.
In recommendation A-92-86, the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) recommended that small airplanes certificated to operate in
icing conditions and at altitudes of 18,000 feet mean sea level and
above should be modified to provide a pitot heat operating light
similar to the light required by Sec. 25.1326. As recommended by the
NTSB, the FAA proposed to amend part 23 to require such indication for
commuter category airplanes (Notice No. 94-21, 59 FR 37620, July 22,
1994). This new requirement, when adopted, will apply to new type
certification and will not affect existing in-service commuter
airplanes or future production of currently approved commuter
airplanes.
In Notice 95-5, the FAA proposed to amend Sec. 121.342 to require
nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31,
1964, to incorporate pitot heat indication systems. Affected commuters
would have to comply within 4 years after the publication date of this
rulemaking.
Comments: Three comments were received on this proposal. Fairchild
Aircraft Co., a manufacturer of commuter airplanes fully supports the
proposal.
RAA notes that FAA's cost estimate of $500 was significantly lower
than the commenter's estimate of between $1,500 and $25,000 per
airplane. The commenter further states that there was no known history
of accidents or incidents to justify the cost of retrofits and
recommends that the requirement apply only to newly manufactured
airplanes.
Commuter Air Technology, an aircraft modifier, notes that pitot
tubes are accessible to ground personnel who could ascertain their
proper function prior to flight. The commenter argues that because of
the short duration of commuter flights (usually 1 hour) failure in
flight would probably allow for continued flight to the next airport.
FAA Response: As a result of comments received in response to
Notice 95-5, the FAA re-examined the cost estimates of this rulemaking.
Those revised cost estimates, which are higher than those in the
proposal, are included in the Regulation Evaluation Summary of this
rulemaking.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's contention that ground
checks and short flights preclude the need for pitot tube heat
indicators. Airspeed indicating errors caused by unheated pitot tubes
have contributed to icing-related accidents. Airspeed indicating errors
are not always obvious to the pilot who may make decisions based on the
resulting erroneous information. A system which indicates when the
pitot tube is, or is not, heated will provide the crew with the status
of the system.
Therefore, the FAA is amending Sec. 121.342, as proposed, to
require nontransport category airplanes type certificated after
December 31, 1964, that are equipped with a flight instrument pitot
heating system to incorporate pitot heat indication systems within 4
years after the effective date of this rulemaking.
Flight data recorders (FDR's). Notice 95-5 did not propose any
substantive revisions to current part 121 or part 135 flight data
recorder (FDR) requirements. According to the proposal, affected
commuters would continue to meet part 135 requirements while the FAA is
developing updated FDR requirements for both parts 121 and 135.
Comments: One commenter states that some of the current equipment
being used is providing inadequate records and that part 121 and 135
certificate holders should be required by December 31, 1999, to install
new FDR on all airplanes. He further states that industry data
indicates the changeover will cost $29 million divided by 454 million
passengers a year, and that equates to 6 cents increase in ticket
prices.
AIA and Raytheon state that following NTSB safety recommendations
on FDR's could result in as large an impact on the economic viability
for current and future aircraft in this category as the effects of
Notice 95-5. They further state that although additional information
from FDR's is needed, the safety recommendations as written would
require 56 to 84 channels of data on a 1900D and would be excessive for
most data requirements. This would result in a large redesign effort
and related increases in costs.
American Eagle comments that it believes that this equipment, as
well as cockpit voice recorders, is important in the post-incident
investigation process and, as a result, has installed FDR's on all its
aircraft even though not all aircraft operated under part 135 are
required to have them. It strongly supports extending the current part
121 requirement to all aircraft with 10 or more seats operating in
scheduled passenger service. In addition, the commenter supports
regulations which would require such equipment to meet a new, higher
minimum standard.
FAA Response: A recommendation for a rule change on FDR's is being
addressed by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC), and the
concerns of the commenting parties will be reflected in that separate
rulemaking if a rule change is proposed. This rulemaking did not
propose any increase in channels for existing FDR's.
For clarification the proposed rule language has been revised in
Sec. 121.344 of the final rule to state that Sec. 135.152 FDR
requirements will apply to airplanes with a payload capacity of 7,500
pounds or less and a passenger seating configuration, excluding any
pilot seat, of 10-30 seats. The proposed rule had not specified
passenger seating capacity.
Radio equipment. Sections 121.345 through 121.351 cover radio
equipment requirements. Part 121 specifies radio equipment requirements
for operations under VFR over routes navigated by pilotage, for
operations under VFR over routes not navigated by pilotage or for
operations under IFR or over-the-top, and for extended overwater
operations. The requirements are more specific and restrictive than
those in Sec. 135.161. The radio equipment requirements in part 121 are
cumulative; that is, the regulations prescribe basic radio equipment
requirements for VFR over routes navigated by pilotage and additional
equipment for VFR over-the-top or IFR. Almost all part 121 operations
are conducted under IFR. The proposed rule would require affected
commuters to comply with part 121 radio equipment requirements.
The final rule revised Sec. 121.349 (radio equipment for operations
under VFR over routes not navigated by pilotage or for operations under
IFR or over the top) by adding a new paragraph (e) which incorporates
requirements in Sec. 135.165(a). This change is necessary because part
121 does not have comparable requirements.
Emergency equipment for operations over uninhabited terrain.
Section 121.353 prescribes the emergency equipment needed for
operations over uninhabited terrain for flag and supplemental
operations. The requirements include pyrotechnic signaling devices,
emergency locator transmitters (ELT's), and survival kits equipped for
the route to be flown. The
[[Page 65871]]
proposed rule would require compliance with Sec. 121.353.
Comments: Two commenters state that application of Sec. 121.353 to
affected commuters would provide relief from compliance with
Sec. 91.205, which would reduce the standards. One of these commenters
claims that S-type ELT's as required by Sec. 121.353 are useful for sea
ditching but are of no use over uninhabited terrain. According to the
commenter, they are intended for extended overwater operations, are
immersion activated, are not intended for fixed installation on
aircraft, lack any impact G-force activation feature, are very bulky,
are extremely expensive, and, by design, are not suitable for surviving
situations other than sea ditching. The commenter states that
incapacitated survivors on uninhabited terrain cannot expect any help
from an S-type ELT. The commenter recommends revising Sec. 121.353 to
state that the provisions are in lieu of part 91 provisions and that an
airplane subject to part 121 must be equipped with an ELT or
pyrotechnic signal device in accordance with Sec. 121.353 or
Sec. 121.339 (extended overwater).
RAA also states that the requirement for pyrotechnic signaling
devices is impractical for airplanes operating under part 121 and
recommends that Sec. 91.205(b)(11) be amended to exclude these
certificate holders.
RAA and ASA point out that the requirement for ELT's in Sec. 91.207
exempts turbojet-powered aircraft and aircraft engaged in scheduled
flights by scheduled air carriers. RAA and ASA believe that all jet-
powered airplanes that normally operate under part 121 whether or not
they utilize propellers should be exempt from the requirements of
Sec. 91.207 during flight operations under part 91, such as ferry,
training, testing, proving runs, which are incidental to or in support
of scheduled operations. RAA and ASA recommend revising
Sec. 91.207(f)(1) to read: ``Large turbine powered airplanes.''
AACA indicates that the economic analysis did not include the
weight penalties or costs for installing, maintaining, repairing, and
training for the use of survival kits. AACA also states that the rule
is unclear as to when the kits are required since ``uninhabited areas''
is not defined. AACA recommends clarifying the applicability of these
requirements to Alaska. AACA, as well as other commenters, also states
that there is an Alaskan state law requiring extensive survival
equipment on board any aircraft operated in the State.
FAA Response: In response to the applicability to Alaska, although
scheduled intrastate operations within the States of Alaska and Hawaii
are currently conducted under flag rules, as a result of this final
rule, these will now be domestic operations and the survival equipment
requirements do not apply to domestic operations. The FAA did not
intend to reduce requirements for operations over uninhabited terrain
in Alaska or Hawaii as currently applicable. Therefore, the title of
Sec. 121.353 has been revised and an applicability statement added to
include Alaska and Hawaii. Since these operators have been meeting flag
requirements, this revision will not be a change for them.
The revisions requested to part 91 to exempt ferry flights and
other types of flight incidental to scheduled flights is a separate
issue from the requirements of Sec. 121.353 which pertain only to
emergency equipment for operations over uninhabited terrain. Any
amendment to part 91 would need to be part of a separate rulemaking.
The FAA does not agree that the language of Sec. 121.353 should be
revised to clarify that it replaces the requirements for pyrotechnic
signaling devices in Sec. 91.205(b)(11) pertaining to aircraft for hire
operated over water beyond power off gliding distance to shore. The
proposed applicability of Sec. 121.353 to affected commuters if they
fly a supplemental or flag operation does not affect the applicability
of part 91 requirements. The requirements of Sec. 91.205(b)(11) would
continue to apply under applicable circumstances. Part 121 requirements
are in addition to part 91, not in lieu of part 91.
The FAA does not agree with the commenter's claim that survival-
type ELT's do not work except in water ditchings. It is true that S-
type ELT's must meet certain buoyancy, waterproofness, and immersion in
salt water requirements. While many S-type ELT's employ water-activated
batteries, they are not required. Regardless of the type of battery
used, each ELT must have a means by which it can be activated manually.
In addition, this rulemaking does not define ``uninhabited
terrain.'' When the predecessor regulation to Sec. 121.353 was proposed
in CAB draft release 58-24 in 1960, ``uninhabited terrain'' was defined
as ``flights for long distances over frigid or tropical land areas for
which the Director finds such equipment to be necessary for search and
rescue operations because of the character of the terrain to be flown
over.'' When the rule was adopted, the wording was changed to provide
the Administrator more flexibility in identifying uninhabited areas.
Since implementation is on a case-by-case basis through operations
specifications, it was determined that the proposed wording was not
necessary. This provision has been in effect for over 30 years without
any problem about the meaning of ``uninhabited areas.''
Airborne weather radar. The proposed rule would require all
affected commuters to have airborne weather radar in accordance with
Sec. 121.357. Currently, part 135 requires weather radar for 20-30
passenger seat airplanes and weather radar equipment or approved
thunderstorm detection equipment for 10-19 passenger airplanes.
Comments: Three comments were received on the proposal. RAA and AMR
Eagle support the proposed requirement. AMR Eagle states that commuter
operations are typically characterized by high frequency operations at
lower altitudes with short stage lengths which necessarily limits
preplanning, planning, or executing a desired deviation in flight
profile because of changing weather. Hence a flightcrew needs all
available tools to conduct safe operations.
One commenter states that airborne weather radar is not needed in
Alaska because severe thunderstorms and tornadoes do not occur there.
AACA claims that Notice 95-5 is silent about the exceptions for
operations within the states of Alaska and Hawaii and within parts of
Canada. AACA requests that the FAA specifically address the issue that
airborne weather radar and airborne thunderstorm detection equipment
will not be required for operations previously excepted under part 121
and part 135 (Secs. 121.357(d) and 135.173(e)). According to the
commenter, there have been no meteorological changes in Alaska since
the regulation was originally written; therefore, this equipment is no
more necessary now than it ever was.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with AACA that, in accordance with
Sec. 121.357(d), airborne weather radar is not required for airplanes
used solely within the State of Hawaii or the State of Alaska or that
part of Canada west of longitude 130 degrees W, between latitude 70
degrees N and latitude 53 degrees N, or during any training, test, or
ferry flight. This exception is retained in the final rule. In Notice
95-5 the FAA did not propose to delete the Sec. 121.357(d) exception.
All other affected operators would have to have airborne weather
radar within the 15-month compliance period.
Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). Under the
proposal,
[[Page 65872]]
affected carriers would be required to comply with part 121 TCAS
requirements in Sec. 121.356. There are no substantive differences
between part 121 and part 135 TCAS requirements for aircraft with
passenger seating configurations of 10-30 seats.
Comments: Fairchild Aircraft recommends that the words,
``combination cargo'' be deleted from Sec. 121.356(b).
ALPA says that the FAA should require TCAS II for aircraft with
fewer than 30 passenger seats, including cargo aircraft (which have
increased in recent years).
RAA recommends revising Sec. 121.356(a) to require that ``* * *
each certificate holder shall equip its airplanes with an approved TCAS
II traffic alert and collision avoidance system and the appropriate
class of Mode S transponder. * * *''
Two certificate holders, Samoa Air and Inter Island Air, say that
TCAS is expensive and useless for their operating environment, i.e.,
airspace with little air traffic.
Fairchild Aircraft states that Sec. 121.345(c)(2), which requires
Mode S transponders, is similar to a requirement in part 135
(Sec. 135.143(c)(2)). According to the commenter, the Mode S equipment
has not been installed and the commenter believes that the FAA is
granting exemptions to the requirement for part 135 certificate
holders. If exemptions would not be granted under part 121, significant
cost would be involved.
FAA Response: The intent of the proposed rule Sec. 121.356 was that
airplanes with a passenger seating configuration of 10 to 30 seats must
be equipped with at least a TCAS I system which is the same as the
present part 135 requirement for the affected airplanes. TCAS I systems
are not required to be equipped with Mode S transponders.
As a commenter states, unrelated to TCAS I requirements, exemptions
to the Mode S requirements of part 135 are currently in effect. Any
affected commuters who hold an exemption from the part 135 requirement
or from Sec. 135.143, Mode S requirements, after this final rule must
reapply to be exempted from the Mode S requirements of part 121.345.
The commenter's recommendation to require TCAS for all-cargo
operations is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, as are the
recommendations to require TCAS II for all airplanes and to exempt
certain affected certificate holders from the requirement for
certificate holders to have TCAS I by December 1995.
Low-altitude windshear systems. Section 121.358 requires an
approved airborne windshear warning system for most turbine powered
airplanes. It specifically excludes turbopropeller-powered airplanes.
No comments were received concerning this section and the final rule is
adopted as proposed. Comments received on windshear training
requirements are discussed under subpart N.
Cockpit voice recorders. No comments were received on this issue;
however, the FAA is making a change in the final rule language to
correctly incorporate the current CVR requirements that apply to
airplanes with 10-30 passenger seats.
Ground proximity warning system (GPWS). Under the proposed rule,
affected commuters would have to comply with the GPWS requirements of
Sec. 121.360. By the compliance date of this rulemaking, all part 135
operators of turbine powered airplanes having a passenger seating
configuration of 10 or more seats would have to have GPWS. All affected
commuters are included in this requirement. The GPWS required under
part 135 would meet the standards of part 121.
No comments were received on this issue; however, the FAA has
discovered that the word ``large'' was not deleted from Sec. 121.360.
This deletion is necessary if the requirements are to apply to all
affected commuters. Accordingly the word ``large'' is deleted in the
final rule.
VI.A.8. Subpart L--Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations
Applicability. Part 121 certificate holders are required to adopt a
continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP), which has a proven
track record for large transport category airplanes. Under
Sec. 135.411(a)(2), airplanes that are type certificated for a
passenger-seating configuration of 10 seats or more are already
required to comply with a CAMP similar to part 121 requirements. The
proposed rule would require all airplanes type certificated for 10 or
more passengers to comply with part 121 CAMP requirements. These
requirements are consistent with present-day maintenance standards and
techniques to manage airplane airworthiness. The proposal to include
affected commuters under part 121 maintenance requirements would not
necessitate a revision to Sec. 121.361.
Section 121.361(b) contains a deviation provision allowing certain
foreign noncertificated persons to perform maintenance. Affected
commuters would now have this option available. Since many of the
airplanes that are the subject of this rulemaking are manufactured
outside the United States, this deviation provision would allow
certificate holders to have the original equipment manufacturers
perform some overhauls and repairs.
Comments: Jetstream Aircraft Limited supports the proposals to
apply this subpart to affected commuters.
American Eagle encourages proposed rulemaking which would mirror
current parts 121 and 25 maintenance and inspection requirements for
aircraft certificated under part 23 or SFAR 41 and used in commercial
aviation of any type.
FAA Response: Since the comments in effect support the proposed
rule changes, they are adopted as proposed.
Responsibility for airworthiness. Section 121.363 places the
responsibility for airworthiness of an airplane on the certificate
holder; Sec. 135.413 contains a similar requirement. Under the
proposal, affected commuters must comply with Sec. 121.363. Section
135.413(a) requires a part 135 operator to have defects repaired
between required maintenance under part 43. This provision does not
appear in part 121. Part 121 operators are required to have defects
repaired in accordance with their maintenance manual. Since an FAA-
approved maintenance manual requires no less than the part 43
requirements, affected commuters would experience no change in
requirements under the proposal. On this issue, no comments were
received and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Maintenance and preventive maintenance, and alteration
organization. Section 121.365 requires the certificate holder to have
an adequate maintenance organization for the accomplishment of
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations on its airplanes.
The provision allows the certificate holder to arrange with another
person to accomplish the work, provided that the certificate holder
determines that the person has an organization adequate to perform the
work. This provision requires separate inspection functions to ensure
that those items directly affecting the safety of flight are verified
to be correct by someone other than the person who performed the work.
The FAA recognizes that other provisions of the proposed rule in
Notice 95-5, which would require affected certificate holders to
install new equipment and might lead to replacement of part 23 type
certificated airplanes with part 25 type certificated airplanes, could
necessitate that maintenance personnel (as required by
[[Page 65873]]
this section and by Secs. 121.367 and 121.371) have additional skills
and training.
Comments: American Eagle supports the proposal.
FAA Response: Since the only comment on this issue is supportive,
the rule is adopted as proposed.
Manual requirements. Sections 121.369 and 135.427 have almost
identical requirements specifying that the certificate holder include
in its manual a description of the organization required by
Sec. 121.365 and a list of persons with whom it has arranged for the
performance of any required inspections, other maintenance, preventive
maintenance, or alterations. The manual must contain the programs
required by Sec. 121.367, including the methods of performing required
inspections, other maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations.
This manual is necessary to ensure that the certificate holder has
provided an adequate maintenance program for the airworthiness of its
airplanes and to inform its personnel, or other persons who perform
maintenance, of their responsibilities regarding the performance of
maintenance on the airplane. In the proposal, the FAA required affected
commuters to comply with part 121. No comments were received on this
issue and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Required inspection personnel. Sections 121.371 and 135.429 contain
similar requirements for inspection personnel, including provisions for
specific qualifications for and supervision of an inspection unit.
Included is a requirement for listing names and appropriate information
of persons who have been trained, qualified, and authorized to conduct
required inspections. This requirement ensures that competent and
properly trained inspection personnel are authorized to perform the
required inspections. In Notice 95-5, the FAA required affected
commuters to comply with part 121. No comments were received on this
issue and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Continuing analysis and surveillance. Section 121.373 on continuing
analysis and surveillance is almost identical to the provisions of
Sec. 135.431. The FAA proposed that affected commuters comply with
Sec. 121.373. Section 121.373 provides for: the establishment by the
certificate holder of a system to continually analyze the performance
and effectiveness of the programs covering maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations; the correction of any deficiencies in
those programs; and the requirement by the Administrator that the
certificate holder make changes in either or both of its programs if
those programs do not contain adequate procedures and standards to meet
the requirements of this part. No comments were received on this issue
and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Maintenance and preventative maintenance training programs.
Sections 121.375 and 135.433 contain identical requirements prescribing
training programs that ensure that persons performing maintenance or
preventive maintenance functions (including inspection personnel) are
fully informed about procedures, techniques, and new equipment in use
and that those personnel are competent to perform their required
duties. The FAA proposed that operators comply with part 121. On this
issue, no comments were received and the final rule is adopted as
proposed.
Maintenance and preventive maintenance personnel duty time
limitations. Section 121.377 establishes the requirements for
maintenance personnel to be relieved from duty for a period of at least
24 consecutive hours during any 7 consecutive days, or the equivalent
thereof within any calendar month. This requirement is for maintenance
personnel within the United States. This provision would be a new
requirement for affected commuters.
Comments: AACA states that most Alaskan certificate holders utilize
mixed fleets ranging from under 9 passenger seats, 10-19 seats, and
more than 20 seats. These carriers frequently employ maintenance
personnel who are qualified to work on all the aircraft in a particular
certificate holder's fleet, regardless of the aircraft's seating
capacity. If the rule is adopted as proposed, these certificate holders
will have to schedule maintenance personnel according to part 121
standards to avoid inadvertently violating the maintenance personnel
duty time limitations. At locations with limited maintenance personnel
and mixed fleets of 1-to-9, and 10-to-29 seat aircraft, this new
requirement would place an additional administrative scheduling burden
and financial compliance cost on the air carrier. Alternatively, an air
carrier might have to develop and apply two separate work schedules for
mechanics, one for part 121 mechanics and aircraft and another for part
135 mechanics and aircraft. AACA states that the FAA's economic
analysis failed to address any cost impacts of this requirement. AACA
also asks for guidance for those operators who employ maintenance
personnel that might work under both part 121 and part 135.
FAA Response: The existing rule requires only 24 consecutive hours
off during any 7 consecutive days. While it may have been possible to
work mechanics under part 135 7 days a week, without rest, the FAA
believes that the combination of union work rules, Department of Labor
regulations, and general practice of a day of rest each week would, in
effect, accomplish the same result as the rule.
Mechanics must receive adequate rest in order to properly perform
their duties. Prescribing a minimum standard will ensure that some rest
is provided. It would be inconsistent to require rest for the pilots
and flight attendants but not for the people responsible for
maintaining the airplane. The FAA believes that the burden of
scheduling and providing a day of rest would be minimal. Standard time
cards, a common practice, could be used to show compliance.
No FAA regulation prevents a mechanic from working for both a part
121 and a part 135 employer when the mechanic is qualified and, when
working on airplanes operated under part 121, the certificate holder
meets the regulatory requirements of part 121 for time free from duty.
It should also be noted that the rule allows flexibility by
requiring that a certificate holder shall relieve each person
performing maintenance or preventive maintenance from duty for at least
24 consecutive hours during any 7 consecutive days, ``or the equivalent
thereof within any calendar month.''
The final rule is adopted as proposed.
Certificate Requirements. Sections 121.378 and 135.435 contain
identical requirements specifying that each person, other than a repair
station certificated under the provisions of subpart C of part 145, who
is directly in charge of maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alterations, and each person performing required inspections, hold an
appropriate airman certificate. The FAA proposed that affected
commuters comply with part 121. No comments were received on this issue
and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Authority to perform and approve maintenance, preventative
maintenance, and alterations. Sections 121.379 and 135.437 contain
similar requirements allowing certificate holders to perform or make
arrangements with other persons to perform maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations as provided in its continuous
airworthiness maintenance program and
[[Page 65874]]
its manual. In addition, a certificate holder may perform these
functions for another certificate holder. The rules require that all
major repairs and alterations must have been accomplished with data
approved by the Administrator. The FAA proposed that affected commuters
comply with part 121. No comments were received on this issue and the
final rule is adopted as proposed.
Maintenance recording requirements. Section 121.380 provides for
the preparation, maintenance, and retention of certain records using
the system specified in the certificate holder's manual. The rule also
specifies the length of time that the records must be retained and
requires that the records be transferred with the airplane at the time
it is sold. A small change was proposed to Sec. 121.380(a)(2) to
accommodate propeller-driven airplanes used by some affected commuters
and to Sec. 121.380(a)(2)(v) to adopt the language found in
Sec. 135.439(a)(2)(v) to provide more complete records on airworthiness
directive compliance.
Comments: Zantop International Airlines, Inc. (a current part 121
certificate holder) objects to the proposed change to
Sec. 121.380(a)(2)(i) that would add engine and propeller total time in
service to the list of items that must be recorded. Zantop says that
the engine and propeller requirement is new for them and that the
aircraft (airframe) total hours in service is the only time transferred
on many of its older aircraft. The new requirement would result in
searching maintenance records to determine the historical time on the
engine and propeller. In some cases this information may not be
available. Zantop recommends that an exemption be provided for older
aircraft or that these records only be required for future
certifications.
FAA Response: Although current Sec. 121.380(a)(2)(i) does not
specifically call for total time in-service records of engines or
propellers, it does require a record of life-limited parts for these
components. The only way to accomplish this is by keeping records for
total time in service. Total time in service records may consist of
aircraft maintenance record pages, separate component cards or pages, a
computer list, or other methods as described in the applicant's manual.
Tracing a life-limited part back to its origin would be required
only in those situations where the certificate holder's records are so
incomplete that an accurate determination of the time elapsed on the
life-limited part could not be made.
The part 135 certificate holders moving to part 121 will have no
impact from this rule, since they are already tracking airframe,
engine, and propeller time under Sec. 135.439(a)(2)(i).
The airframe, engine, and propeller information is helpful in
tracking airworthiness directive compliance and life limits for life-
limited parts. It also standardizes language between part 135 and part
121. The FAA believes that at least some of the current part 121
certificate holders have the information in existing required records
in order to show compliance with life-limited components. However, the
FAA has decided to allow current part 121 operators some time to come
into compliance with the requirements for recording total time for
engines and propellers. The final rule for Sec. 121.380 has been
revised accordingly.
Transfer of maintenance records. Section 121.380a requires the
certificate holder to transfer certain maintenance records to the
purchaser at the time of the sale, either in plain language form or in
coded form. This section is worded the same as Sec. 135.441 except that
the part 121 provision allows the purchaser to select the format of the
transferred records. Notice 95-5 specified that affected commuters
comply with part 121. No comments were received on this issue and the
final rule is adopted as proposed.
VI.A.9. Subpart M--Airman and Crewmember Requirements
Flight attendant complement. Section 121.391 requires one flight
attendant for airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 9 but
less than 51 passengers. Section 135.107 requires one flight attendant
for airplanes having a passenger seating configuration, excluding any
pilot seat, of more than 19 passengers. The FAA retained the
requirement for a flight attendant for more than 9 passengers for
current part 121 airplanes and proposed to amend the section to require
a flight attendant for affected commuters only in airplanes with more
than 19 passenger seats. No comments were received on this issue and
the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Flight attendants being seated during movement on the surface.
Section 121.391(d) states that during movement on the surface, flight
attendants must remain at their duty stations with safety belts and
shoulder harnesses fastened except to perform duties related to the
safety of the airplane and its occupants. Part 135 has a similar
provision in Sec. 135.128(a), except that it does not specify that
flight attendants may be performing safety duties during movement on
the surface. The FAA proposed that affected commuters comply with part
121. On this issue, no comments were received and the final rule is
adopted as proposed.
Flight attendants or other qualified personnel at the gate. The FAA
proposed that all airplanes being operated by affected commuters be
required to comply with current Sec. 121.391(e); that is, they must
have a flight attendant or substitute (such as a flight crewmember or
trained gate agent) on board when the airplane is parked at the gate
and passengers are on board. The substitutes must be given training in
the emergency evacuation procedures for that airplane as required by
Sec. 121.417 and they must be identified to the passengers. If there is
only one flight attendant or other qualified person on board the
airplane, that person must be located in accordance with the
certificate holder's FAA-approved operating procedures.
As a result of the proposed rule, Sec. 121.391(e) applies in the
future to some operations that do not require flight attendants.
Therefore, the FAA proposed to move Sec. 121.391(e) to a new separate
section, proposed Sec. 121.393, to highlight the crewmember
requirements that apply when an airplane is on the ground and
passengers remain on board before continuing to another destination.
Comments: AACA opposes the requirement for flight attendants at the
gate. The commenter states that it would be impossible for one of the
two crewmembers on the 10-to-19 seat airplanes to stay on board with
passengers while parked at the gate. Both crewmembers would be needed
to assist in the loading and unloading process. Furthermore, the
commenter states that deplaning passengers would not be a viable option
because airports do not have the proper facilities. Most airplanes are
not met by a gate agent in rural Alaska airports, and airplanes do not
pull up to a terminal. Therefore, the commenter states that a trained
substitute would have to stay on board the airplane with the passengers
while parked at the gate 100% of the time. The commenter states that
the FAA has underestimated the training costs and wage costs for the
option of using a substitute. The commenter estimates that this
requirement would cost about $2.9 million (costs not broken down) each
year for all of the Alaskan commuter air carriers to comply.
FAA Response: While many of the affected airplanes are operated
seasonally and do not fly in the winter, some operate during extreme
weather conditions into airports that do not have
[[Page 65875]]
terminals to use for deplaning. To the extent possible the FAA would
like a flight attendant or pilot on board whenever passengers are on
board. Since the affected 10- to 19-passenger-seat airplanes do not
require a flight attendant, it would be inconsistent to require one
only during ground operations. However, each of the affected commuter
airplanes require two pilots for their operations. One can stay on
board while the other does any necessary work off the airplane. Other
options are to deplane the passengers or use a trained substitute.
The FAA recognizes that part 121 was written with the expectation
that flight attendants would be available and that pilots would not be
loading baggage or performing other duties outside the airplane.
Therefore, the FAA is revising Sec. 121.393 for airplanes for which a
flight attendant is not required to allow a crewmember or qualified
person to be on board or near the airplane. If the crewmember or
qualified person is not on board the crewmember or qualified person
must be near the airplane and in a position to adequately monitor
passenger safety. Airplane engines must be shut down and at least one
floor level exit must remain open to provide for the deplaning of
passengers. This amendment is consistent with current FAA policy for
refueling with passengers on board. The FAA has determined that this
option is functionally equivalent to having a qualified person on board
since these airplanes are small enough to monitor passenger
compartments from outside the airplane.
VI.A.10. Subparts N and O--Training Program and Crewmember
Qualifications
Subpart N, Training. As the discussion earlier in this preamble
points out, the issue of training has been the subject of separate
rulemaking. However, several comments were received on training
requirements.
Comments: AIA states that Notice 95-5 is virtually silent on
training; however, this is an important part of the total picture. AIA
states that the separate initiative on training should be reviewed in
conjunction with this NPRM.
Raytheon echoes AIA's comments on training, and adds that
successful implementation of the training actions would be expected to
have a dramatic impact on future accident statistics. Training should
be the principal focus for safety improvement together with future
programs for safety system monitoring. Raytheon also states that while
NPRM 95-5 was not intended to cover training, Notice 95-5 probably
would not have been proposed if training were more effective.
Air Vegas comments that all additional flight training would have
to be done in the aircraft because there is no Beech 99 simulator in
existence. This would increase the hours for initial and transition
training and nearly double training costs.
Fairchild Aircraft says that, under Secs. 121.424 and 121.427 as
well as part 121 Appendix E, windshear training must be performed in a
simulator and that such simulators are not likely to be available to
many commuter airline operators. This commenter adds that there is no
evidence that the part 135 windshear program is inadequate.
Fairchild Aircraft recommends that Secs. 121.424 and 121.427, as
well as Appendix E, be amended to provide relief from windshear
simulator training for certificate holders of turbopropeller airplanes
with 30 or fewer passenger seats. An individual commenter recommends
that low-altitude windshear training be made a part of both ground and
flight (simulator) training under part 135. This commenter says that,
currently, commuter aircraft are not equipped to receive advance
warning of low-level windshear and that training would help pilots to
better deal with such occurrences. ALPA proposes that Sec. 121.400(b)
be amended by adding a group specific to propeller-driven aircraft with
a seating capacity between 10 and 30 seats. This will ensure that
personnel, particularly dispatchers and meteorologists, understand and
appreciate the working environment of these aircraft, including the
facilities and capabilities associated with weather, airports,
maintenance, and logistics, etc.
An individual commenter supports increased commuter training for
several reasons: Most accidents are related to human (not equipment)
error, there is a need for more simulator training among commuters, and
part 135 aircrews must deal with a high number of regional landings and
takeoffs as well as varied weather conditions.
Jetstream Aircraft Limited and American Eagle support the proposed
rulemaking to strengthen part 135 crewmember training.
FAA Response: The comments on appropriate training requirements,
while generally supportive of the FAA's goals in this rulemaking, are
actually more relevant to the separate rulemaking addressed in Section
III.E, Related FAA Action. The windshear simulator training
requirements only affect turbine powered airplanes (turbojets) on which
windshear equipment is required by Sec. 121.358.
Subpart O, Crewmember Qualifications. Because of the separate
rulemaking previously discussed, the FAA did not propose any changes to
subpart O except for the removal of an obsolete section (Sec. 121.435).
Nonetheless, a number of comments were received.
Comments: RAA, ASA, Gulfstream, United Express, Big Sky Airlines,
and an individual oppose the requirement that currently qualified first
officers performing the duties of second in command obtain initial
operating experience (IOE) under Sec. 121.434. However, these
commenters do support an IOE requirement for newly designated first
officers and new hires. United Express recommends that air carrier
proving runs be used for operations evaluation and that if, during the
proving runs, an airline does not meet performance criteria, operations
should terminate until a satisfactory fix is established.
American Eagle supports IOE requirements for all first officers and
believes that the additional costs associated with such a requirement
are worth it to ensure that these pilots are fully qualified.
RAA, ASA, and Gulfstream believe that a basis and criteria for
``grandfathering'' these current and qualified seconds in command can
be the training records of each of these airmen as well as the flight
records documenting their experience as first officers.
An individual commenter says that a precedent for grandfathering
these pilots is the ``N & O'' exemptions held by certain 135
certificate holders which allows training under part 121 but does not
require repetition of unique part 121 IOE for crews which have been
conducting scheduled operations under part 135.
Fairchild Aviation recommends that Sec. 121.437(a) be amended to
recognize the fact that not all 10-19 passenger airplanes are large
airplanes. This commenter says that this section should be changed to
read, ``* * * and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that
aircraft.''
FAA Response: The comments on appropriate crewmember qualification
requirements are actually more relevant to the separate rulemakings
addressed in Section III.E, Recent FAA Actions. The concerns raised by
these commenters have been considered in those rulemaking actions.
[[Page 65876]]
VI.A.11. Subpart P--Aircraft Dispatcher Qualifications and Duty Time
Limitations: Domestic and Flag Operations
Requirements for dispatch systems and aircraft dispatcher
qualifications are discussed in Section V.F., Dispatch system.
VI.A.12. Subparts Q, R, and S--Flight Time Limitations and Rest
Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations
Requirements for flight time limits and rest requirements are
discussed in Section V.D., Flight time limits and rest requirements.
VI.A.13. Subpart T--Flight Operations
Operational control. Sections 121.533 and 121.535 require each
domestic and flag operation to be responsible for operational control
and specify the responsibilities for aircraft dispatchers and pilots
for each flight release. No comments were received on these sections
and the final rule is adopted as proposed; however, related comments on
dispatch system requirements are discussed in Section V.F., Dispatch
system.
Admission to flight deck. Section 121.547 specifies who may be
admitted to the flight deck of a passenger-carrying airplane. The part
121 section is similar to Sec. 135.75 but provides for additional types
of persons who may be admitted. FAA proposed that affected commuters
comply with part 121. No comments were received concerning this section
and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Flying equipment. Section 121.549(b) requires that each crewmember
shall, on each flight, have readily available for his or her use, a
flashlight that is in good working order. This is a new requirement for
10- to 30-passenger seat airplanes for co-pilots that was not
specifically discussed in Notice No. 95-5. No comments were received
and the final rule remains as proposed.
Emergency procedures. Parts 121 and 135 require that, when the
certificate holder or PIC knows of conditions that are a hazard to safe
operations, the operation must be restricted or suspended until the
hazardous conditions are corrected. For a discussion of this issue, see
``Emergency Operations (Proposed Secs. 119.57 and 119.58)'' later in
this preamble.
Briefing passengers before takeoff. The FAA proposed to amend
Sec. 121.571(a) to bring over from Sec. 135.117 requirements for
additional passenger information for airplanes with no flight
attendant. This additional information includes instructions on
location of survival equipment, normal and emergency use of oxygen
equipment for flights above 12,000 MSL, location and operation of fire
extinguishers, and placement of seat backs in an upright position for
takeoffs and landings. The FAA proposed that the affected commuters
otherwise comply with the part 121 rules on passenger information. The
printed cards would need to be revised or supplemented to provide
information on flotation cushions or other required flotation devices
once these devices are installed.
A small change was proposed for Sec. 121.571(a)(3) to allow a
flight crewmember (instead of a flight attendant) to provide an
individual briefing of a person who may need assistance in the event of
an emergency, in cases where an airplane does not have a flight
attendant.
Comments: AACA disagrees with the FAA's cost estimate for the
required passenger information cards and briefings. The commenter
states that the FAA's cost estimate appears to be low. Alaskan air
carriers would need to devise a more comprehensive information system
due to the many nationalities and native languages in Alaska. Many
local passengers are not native speakers of English or are not fluent
in its comprehension. Briefing cards must be painstakingly translated
into many Alaskan Native languages at great expense. Some air carriers
have also had to translate into Japanese, Korean, and Russian for
tourists from the Pacific Rim nations. Based on experience, the
commenter states that the FAA's assumption of a 3-year life expectancy
for information cards is high and that information cards normally last
less than a year due to wear and theft. The commenter also estimates
costs of $26,000 for Alaskan commuter air carriers in the first year
and $4,224 each year thereafter to meet the requirement.
FAA Response: While the FAA recognizes the benefits of translating
passenger information on briefing information, this has never been a
requirement but an option undertaken by the operator to improve service
and safety.
The 3-year life expectancy of briefing cards is based on past
experience. There is nothing unique to Alaska that would warrant a
deteriorated state sooner than within 3 years.
Part 135 10- to 19-seat airplane briefing card requirements are
being incorporated into part 121. New cards need not be revised
immediately and normal wear cycles prevail so that this rule would not
impose additional costs.
Oxygen for medical use by passengers. Section 121.574 provides that
a certificate holder may allow a passenger to carry and operate
equipment for dispensing oxygen if, among other requirements, the
equipment is furnished by the certificate holder. The proposal would
require affected certificate holders to comply with Sec. 121.574.
Under current Sec. 135.91, the certificate holder may allow a
passenger to carry and operate equipment for dispensing oxygen provided
certain requirements are met. Section 135.91(d) contains a provision
for permitting a noncomplying oxygen bottle provided by medical
emergency service personnel to be carried on board the airplane under
certain circumstances; this provision was not proposed to be carried
forward into part 121.
Comments: AACA states that many medevac operations take place on
board scheduled and on-demand flights. Without aviation oxygen
available at village health clinics, the flexibility of Sec. 135.91(d)
would be lost if it is not carried forward into part 121. AACA
recommends allowing a noncomplying oxygen bottle on aircraft operating
solely within the State of Alaska. To prohibit this will mean medevac
costs will increase and patient transports will have to be done on
board charter flights that can originate from a hub point where medical
oxygen and stretcher units can be installed on the airplane.
FAA Response: The FAA does not find it necessary to move the
language of Sec. 135.91 to Sec. 121.574. The FAA has issued exemptions
on this requirement to part 121 certificate holders operating in
Alaska.
Alcoholic beverages. Sections 121.575 and 135.121 contain
requirements controlling the serving and consumption of alcoholic
beverages on the airplane. The requirements are similar except for
three minor additional requirements in Sec. 121.575. The FAA proposed
that affected commuters comply with the requirements of Sec. 121.575
and since no comments were received on this issue, the final rule is
adopted as proposed.
Retention of items of mass. Section 121.576 requires that
certificate holders must provide and use a means to prevent each item
of galley equipment and each serving cart, when not in use, and each
item of crew baggage, which is carried in the crew or passenger
compartment, from becoming a hazard. Section 121.577 prohibits a
certificate holder from moving an airplane on the surface or taking off
unless such items are secure. Sections 135.87 and 135.122 require
certificate holders to ensure that
[[Page 65877]]
such items are secure before takeoff. The FAA proposed that the
affected commuters comply with Sec. 121.577, which is substantively the
same as Sec. 135.122. No comments were received on this issue and the
final rule is adopted as proposed.
Cabin ozone concentration. Section 121.578 sets maximum levels of
ozone concentration inside the cabins of transport category airplanes
operating above 27,000 feet. The affected commuters do not generally
operate at these altitudes. The FAA believes that these rules should
apply whenever the altitudes are exceeded. The FAA proposed to amend
Sec. 121.578(b) to delete the reference to transport category
airplanes.
Comments: Commuter Air Technology states that it does not operate
above 25,000 feet. The commenter asks if operation in part 135 now
requires ozone monitors and if part 91 flights of 10 or more passengers
operated above 27,000 require ozone monitors.
FAA Response: For operations at or below 27,000 feet the ozone
requirements do not apply. The answer to both questions of the
commenter is no. Part 91 and part 135 do not have ozone provisions. The
final rule is the same as proposed.
Minimum altitudes for use of autopilot. Sections 121.579 and 135.93
establish minimum altitudes for use of autopilots. The two sections are
similar; however, part 135 does not specify weather requirements for an
approach. In a recent NPRM proposing to revise the minimum altitude for
use of an autopilot (59 FR 63868, December 9, 1994), which is under
consideration, the minimum altitude for autopilot use corresponds to
that designated in the type design of the autopilot and stated in the
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). If the rule is adopted as proposed, the
AFM would establish guidance that would be edited and approved in the
air carrier's operations specifications.
Comments: Commuter Air Technology comments that it has aircraft
without autopilots and questions how the rule would affect those
aircraft.
AACA states that an NPRM published on December 9, 1994, will
require the AFM to establish guidance that would be edited and approved
in the affected air carrier's operations specifications.
FAA Response: If the airplane does not have an autopilot,
Sec. 121.579 does not apply.
Section 135.93 is similar to Sec. 121.579; however, there are
differences that would necessitate manual and training changes
regarding the use of the autopilot.
The above mentioned proposal includes the recommendations of the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). The FAA has proposed in
that rulemaking that instead of the 500 ft. minimum stated in the
regulations, the autopilot could be engaged at whatever the airplane
flight manual says it is capable of (200 ft., 100 ft., etc.). Comments
were favorable. If adopted, the results of that separate rule will
apply to the affected commuters.
Observer's seat. Section 121.581 requires a certificate holder to
make available a seat on the flight deck of each airplane for use by
the Administrator while conducting routine inspections. Comparable
Sec. 135.75 requires, for inspections, a forward observer's seat on the
flight deck or a forward passenger seat with headset or speaker.
Because airplanes in the 10- to 30-seat range may not have an
observer's seat on the flight deck, the FAA proposed to move the option
of providing a forward passenger seat into part 121 and require
compliance with part 121 for affected commuter operators. No comments
were received regarding this issue and the final rule is adopted as
proposed.
Authority to refuse transportation. Section 121.586 prohibits a
certificate holder from refusing transportation to a passenger on the
basis that the passenger will need the assistance of another person to
move quickly to an exit in the event of an emergency unless the
certificate holder has established procedures for the carriage of such
passengers and the passenger either fails to comply or cannot be
carried in accordance with the procedures.
Comments: Commuter Air Technology states that their aircraft has no
place for a wheelchair and that the seat opposite the main cabin door
has increased pitch which normally accommodates individuals with
movement restrictions.
FAA Response: In response to the specific comment, if a certificate
holder has no room on board an airplane to handle a wheelchair as
carry-on baggage, the wheelchair may be checked as cargo baggage.
The Air Carrier Access Act is implemented in 14 CFR part 382.
Aircraft accessibility requirements found in Sec. 382.21 generally
exempt aircraft operated under part 121 with fewer than 30 passengers
and aircraft operated under part 135. The rule requires that these
aircraft comply ``to the extent not inconsistent with structural,
weight and balance, operational and interior configuration
limitations.''
The FAA anticipates that affected commuters will establish
procedures in accordance with Sec. 121.586. These procedures must be
developed in accordance with Sec. 382.21. Since operators under parts
121 and 135 are already in compliance with Sec. 382.21, this rulemaking
poses no new requirements other than establishing procedures for the
carriage of passengers who may need special assistance in an emergency.
Carry-on baggage: The FAA proposed that the affected commuters
comply with the Sec. 121.589 carry-on baggage rule. This would require
the preparation and approval of a carry-on baggage program.
Comments: Commuter Air Technology states that its aircraft have no
carry-on baggage storage other than for a standard briefcase under the
seat. According to the commenter, carry-on baggage is removed from
passengers and placed in the pod upon entry. The interior is also
placarded to require adequate securing of any interior cargo. AACA is
concerned about the cost of a baggage scanning program.
FAA Response: Even if the aircraft allows only limited carry-on
baggage, the certificate holder must still have a carry-on baggage
program that complies with Sec. 121.589. Interior cargo must be secured
in accordance with Sec. 121.285. (See discussion of Sec. 121.285,
Carriage of cargo in passenger compartments in this notice.) The final
rule revises references in accordance with other changes in this
rulemaking. Although affected operators must develop a program for
their approved manuals, compliance will not result in any significant
substantive operational burden.
Use of certificated airports. For a discussion of the issue of
airports certificated under part 139, see Section V.H., Airports.
VI.A.14. Subpart U--Dispatching and Flight Release Rules
Flight release authority. Section 121.597, which applies to
supplemental operations, requires a flight release signed by the pilot
in command when the pilot and the person authorized by the certificate
holder to exercise operational control believe that the flight can be
made safely. Under part 135 releases are not required for either
scheduled or on-demand flights. The FAA proposed requiring compliance
with part 121. This requirement would apply to affected commuter
airplanes when those airplanes are used in nonscheduled service with a
passenger-seating configuration of 10 or more. No
[[Page 65878]]
comments were received on this issue and the final rule is adopted as
proposed.
Dispatch or flight release under VFR. Section 121.611 states that
no person may dispatch or release an airplane for VFR operation unless
the ceiling and visibility en route, as indicated by available weather
reports or forecasts, are and will remain at or above applicable VFR
minimums until the airplane arrives at the airport.
Comments: One commenter states that VFR is certainly an acceptable
standard for sightseeing operations or for smaller carriers. Scenic Air
states that airplanes typically used in the tour business can only
operate day VFR. Grand Canyon Airways said 99 percent of its flights
are VFR.
An individual states that the proposal on Sec. 121.611 concerning
VFR dispatch is unclear as to whether part 135 certificate holders will
be required to comply. The commenter believes they should be covered by
Sec. 121.611 because it is the safe way and costs nothing.
FAA Response: In the final rule, affected commuters are required to
comply with Sec. 121.611. The FAA will develop additional operations
specifications paragraphs and guidance for VFR tour operations, remote
area operations (e.g. Samoa, Alaska) or other operations that are not
capable of being conducted under IFR because they have no airways, IFR
approaches, navaids, etc.
Alternate airport for departure. Section 121.617(a) requires an
alternate departure airport during certain weather conditions and
specifies that for aircraft having two engines the alternate airport
must be not more than one hour from the departure airport at normal
cruising speed in still air with one engine inoperative. Under the
proposed rule, affected commuters would have to comply with the
requirement. This requirement was not specifically discussed in the
proposed rule.
Comments: Fairchild Aircraft comments that this requirement
requires single-engine cruising speed data that are unlikely to be
included in the FAA-approved airplane flight manual of 10-19 passenger
airplanes. Comparable Sec. 135.217 requires an alternate airport
``within 1 hour's flying time (at normal cruising speed) in still
air.'' The commenter requests that the part 135 wording be inserted in
the part 121 section.
FAA Response: Fairchild is correct, but the FAA is retaining the
requirement and it will be necessary for affected commuters to work
with airplane manufacturers to develop appropriate data for normal one-
engine inoperative cruising speed for the airplane flight manual within
15 months. (See also Section VI.A.4 Airplane limitations: Type of route
for discussion of one engine inoperative data).
Operations in icing conditions. No comments were received on this
proposal and the final rule is adopted as proposed. (See also VI.A.7.
Equipment for operations in icing conditions).
Fuel reserves. Sections 121.639, 121.641, 121.643, and 121.645
contain fuel reserve requirements based on the type of operation to be
conducted. These fuel reserve requirements do not distinguish between
VFR and IFR operations. Section 121.639 requires 45 minutes of fuel
reserve for domestic air carriers and for certain other air carrier
operations.
Section 135.209 requires 30 minutes of fuel reserve for day VFR
conditions and 45 minutes for night VFR conditions. Section 135.223
requires 45 minutes for IFR conditions.
The FAA proposed to require affected commuters to comply with the
fuel reserve requirements of part 121.
Comments: Fairchild Aircraft comments that the FAA failed to take
into consideration that Sec. 121.639 requires fuel to fly to an
alternate airport regardless of conditions, and finds that the proposed
rule would have a detrimental impact economically, with no related gain
in safety. Fairchild suggests that the FAA adopt Sec. 135.209, which
requires a 30-minute reserve for airplanes with fewer than 31 seats.
Samoa Air comments that the proposal would require a 45-minute reserve
for flights that average 30 minutes and is therefore unnecessary.
Raytheon adds that its aircraft would have to give up one of 19
passengers to carry the additional fuel. Raytheon argues that smaller
airplanes make shorter flights than big airliners, can operate to and
from shorter runways, and are closer to an alternate airport.
Therefore, the 10-19 seat airplane should be exempt from this
requirement. Commuter Air Transport comments that all of its current
route analysis is done on a 45-minute reserve.
AACA states that fuel reserve requirements for part 121 are 50
percent higher than for operating identical aircraft under part 135.
According to AACA, the large fuel reserves required for dispatching
smaller turboprop aircraft under part 121 make those aircraft
marginally economical to operate when faced with competition from
piston-powered twins operated under part 135.
At the Las Vegas public hearing, Twin Otter International stated
that taking the VFR fuel reserve from 30 to 45 minutes is 150 pounds of
fuel. That is reducing the capacity of the airplane by one passenger.
The commenter is not sure there would be any safety benefit for
sightseeing operations.
A pilot in Alaska comments that the part 135 fuel reserve
requirements are adequate and that adding more reserves would degrade
the already limited payload of many affected aircraft. Two commenters
point out that operations that begin as VFR may end up IFR and that a
45-minute reserve provides more options, than a 30-minute fuel reserve.
Another individual recommends adopting the 45-minute fuel reserve.
While it may be argued that there are a greater number of potential
alternate airports within 30 minutes flying time of a destination
airport that are capable of handling smaller, commuter-type airplanes,
some of these potential alternates may not be acceptable from the
standpoint of having weather reporting or aircraft rescue and
firefighting capability. Additionally, once airborne, fuel time and the
30-minute reserve (some of which is unusable) might pressure some crews
into poor operational situations. A standard 45-minute reserve provides
more options.
One individual states that commuters can quantify the costs of the
additional 15 minutes of fuel reserve, which cannot be significant. The
standardization and extra fuel safety margin should be worth the cost.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes that there are some operations
that appear not to require a 45-minute fuel reserve. One of these is
the flight that only takes 30 minutes. The logical solution would be to
carry 30 minutes of reserve fuel so that, at worst, the airplane could
return to its airport of origin. However, in some circumstances, such
as the sudden occurrence of bad weather, returning may not be possible.
Therefore, the FAA agrees with commenters who point out that a 45-
minute fuel reserve provides more options.
The FAA also acknowledges that for some airplanes the additional
fuel may require the loss of a passenger seat and the FAA recognizes
the burden of the 45-minute reserve. Accordingly, the FAA is allowing
relief in the final rule for those who operate day VFR per operations
specifications. However, the FAA retains the requirement for a 45-
minute reserve whenever on an IFR flight plan, including under VFR
conditions. The special rule allows relief to those who are truly VFR
such as air tour operators and certain Alaskan operations. The relief
applies only to
[[Page 65879]]
10-19 passenger seat operators with airplanes certificated after 1964.
These smaller airplanes have more flexibility in VFR to find a suitable
landing airport. This flexibility provides functional equivalency to
part 121.
VI.A.15 Subpart V--Records and Reports
Subpart V prescribes requirements for the preparation and
maintenance of records and reports for all certificate holders
operating under part 121. Although many of the requirements are
identical to or similar to the recordkeeping requirements in
Secs. 135.63 and 135.65, part 121 requires additional information,
including new records and reports. Notice 95-5 proposed that affected
commuters comply with the recordkeeping requirements of part 121.
Comments: Jetstream supports the application of subpart V to
affected commuter operations.
RAA and ASA point out that Sec. 121.715 on in-flight medical
emergency reports is an obsolete requirement that should be eliminated.
These commenters also contend that Sec. 121.711 on retention of
communication records would require affected commuters to record each
enroute radio contact and keep the record for 30 days. According to
these commenters, recent interpretations of this requirement have
caused some certificate holders to establish elaborate recording
systems. The commenters question the need for these records and suggest
that the requirement be eliminated if it no longer serves a useful
purpose.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with commenters that Sec. 121.715,
relating to inflight medical emergencies, is obsolete and it has been
deleted in the final rule. The commenters are correct that Sec. 121.711
requires certificate holders to record each en route radio contact and
keep the record for 30 days. This requirement is necessary for all
certificate holders and has been retained in the final rule.
VI.B. Part 119--Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators:
Summary
Part 119 is a new part that consolidates into one part the
certification and operations specifications requirements for persons
who operate under parts 121 and 135. For the most part, these
regulations are currently in SFAR 38-2, which replaced the
certification and operations specification requirements in parts 121
and 135 in response to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.
Part 119 was originally proposed in 1988 (53 FR 39853; October
12, 1988; Docket No. 25713). Based on comments received on the
definition of ``scheduled operation'' in that notice, the FAA
published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) in
1993 (58 FR 32248; June 8, 1993; Docket No. 25713). In Notice 95-5,
the FAA republished the entire text of part 119 for comment because
of the length of time since the first NPRM, the number of changes
that were made to the proposed text, and the significance of the
changes to part 119 that resulted from the review of commuter
operations. Each section of part 119 that had been changed since the
previous notices was explained in the preamble to Notice 95-5.
The first objective of part 119 is to establish a permanent
guide in a new part that will enable persons who provide
transportation of people or cargo to determine what certification,
operations, maintenance, and other regulatory requirements they must
comply with. A second objective is to set out procedural
requirements for the certification process that apply to all
certificate holders conducting operations under part 121 or part
135.
Part 119 accomplishes the following:
(1) Incorporates much of SFAR 38-2 as Subparts A and B;
(2) Revises certification procedures now in parts 121 and 135
and consolidates them as Subpart C;
(3) Revises wet leasing requirements;
(4) Provides definitions for terms such as ``direct air
carrier'' and ``kind of operation,'' and clarifies the requirements
for operations specifications by adding definitions for terms such
as ``domestic operation'' and ``supplemental operation;''
(5) Provides a roadmap for certificate holders to lead them to
the operating rules in part 121, 125, or 135 that they must comply
with for the kind of operations that they conduct;
(6) Adds a new requirement for a Director of Safety; adds
management requirements for domestic and flag operations conducted
under part 121 consistent with those that now exist for supplemental
operations conducted under part 121; and consolidates part 121 and
part 135 management requirements;
(7) Rescinds part 127 and any requirements that pertain solely
to helicopters in part 121, Subparts A through D; and
(8) Throughout part 121, Subparts A through D, and part 135,
Subpart A, changes various references from CAB requirements to DOT
requirements, changes terminology where needed, and makes incidental
editorial changes.
Comments on Part 119
This section contains a summary and a response to the comments
received on specific sections of part 119.
General Comments on part 119. USAir Express expresses concern over
the 7-year time lag between when part 119 was originally introduced and
the issuance of Notice 95-5. This commenter suggests that since many
changes have occurred in the air industry and in the FAA, it may be
best to issue subparts A and B of part 119, but to leave the
requirements in subpart C in their current form in parts 121 and 135.
NATA similarly contends that ``the unknown effects of the requirements
contained in part 119 are not adequately considered in Notice 95-5's
cost-benefit analysis.'' Both of these commenters believe that the new
requirements in part 119 impose unnecessary administrative burdens for
certificate holders.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the arguments presented by the
commenters. For the most part, subchapter C is a recodification of the
existing part 121 and 135 certification requirements for applicants for
air carrier or operating certificates. In some instances, such as wet
leases under Sec. 119.53, recency of operation under Sec. 119.63, and
management personnel under Secs. 119.65 and 119.67, where substantive
changes are made, further discussion is contained elsewhere in this
preamble.
Section 119.2--Compliance. The final rule contains a new Sec. 119.2
that states that certificate holders shall continue to comply with SFAR
38-2 until 15 months after the publication date of the final rule or
the date on which the certificate holder is issued part 121 operations
specifications, whichever occurs first.
Section 119.3--Definitions. Section 119.3 contains definitions for
the five kinds of operations conducted under parts 121 and 135
(Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental in part 121 and Commuter and On-
demand in part 135). The FAA proposed to move the affected commuters to
part 121 by changing the definitions for ``Commuter operations,''
``Domestic operations,'' and ``Flag operations.'' Comments on these
definitions as they relate to affected commuters are discussed earlier
in the preamble under ``V.B. Applicability.'' Other comments on
proposed definitions are discussed in this section.
General comments on definitions. There were several comments on the
lack of definitions for certain terms in the proposed rule, and, in
some cases, the lack of distinctions drawn among certain terms.
Helicopter Association International (HAI) cites the lack of a
definition for ``common carrier,'' saying that it is hard to understand
the differen
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
ce between this and the ``noncommon carrier.'' One
commenter recommends that ``nonscheduled operations'' should substitute
for ``on-demand operations'' and ``supplemental operations'' and that
``scheduled operations'' should replace the words ``domestic,''
``flag,'' and ``commuter'' in order to simplify and standardize the
regulations. Additionally, whenever the phrase ``flag operations''
needs to be
[[Page 65880]]
distinguished, ``scheduled foreign operations'' could be used instead.
Further, this commenter suggests that ``since the term `scheduled' now
means any scheduled flight, there would be no need to define it, as the
five round trips per week definition has been dropped.''
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the comment that ``scheduled''
and ``nonscheduled'' should be substituted for the terms ``domestic,''
``flag,'' ``commuter,'' ``supplemental,'' and ``on-demand.'' These are
five distinct kinds of operations that the FAA needs to identify and
regulate separately according to the characteristics of each kind of
operation and the terms are presently used throughout the regulations.
Also, the ``five round trips per week'' concept has been reinstated for
commuter operations with 9 or fewer passengers, as discussed in Section
V.B., Applicability.
``Common carrier'' is a term that has been discussed in numerous
court cases. ``Non common carriage'' is being defined in Sec. 119.3.
``All-cargo operations''. Proposed Sec. 119.3 defines ``all-cargo
operation'' to mean any operation for compensation or hire that is
other than a passenger-carrying operation. These operations follow the
rules for on-demand or supplemental operations, regardless of whether
the all-cargo operation is conducted on a regular, ``scheduled'' basis.
Comments: ALPA proposes that the FAA should discontinue the
distinction between scheduled passenger and scheduled all-cargo
operations and reserve that distinction for the nonscheduled all-cargo
operation because there is little difference between the scheduled
passenger and scheduled all-cargo operations.
FAA Response: The FAA has considered ALPA's suggestion; however, it
is outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, the definition has
been slightly modified so that passengers described in Secs. 121.583(a)
and 135.85 can be carried without the operation losing its all-cargo
status.
``Commuter operations''. The proposed definition for ``commuter
operations'' limits the use of this term to scheduled operations in
airplanes having 9 or less passenger seats or in any size rotorcraft.
Comments: Fairchild Aircraft states that applying the term
``commuter operations'' to operations with 9 or fewer passenger seats
or to rotorcraft is inappropriate because this use of the term differs
from the generally accepted meaning, i.e. frequent service over short
stage lengths and service to small communities. According to the
commenter, under this proposed definition, commuter category airplanes
will no longer be used in commuter operations. The commenter also
states that the proposed definition is inconsistent with the use of the
term ``commuter operator'' in part 93. The commenter suggests that a
new term be invented for scheduled operations with 9 or fewer passenger
seats or rotorcraft.
FAA Response: As was discussed in Notice 95-5 and earlier in this
preamble, the term ``commuter'' is presently used in several different
ways. The FAA agrees with the commenter that the proposed definition
does not accommodate all of the different uses of the term
``commuter.'' However, operators of aircraft with 9 or fewer passengers
do provide frequent service over short stage lengths and service to
small communities. Therefore, the term is appropriate for these
operations. The FAA acknowledges that this definition differs from the
definition of ``commuter operator'' in part 93 and from the DOT
definition. That inconsistency will continue.
``Domestic operation''. Proposed Sec. 119.3 defines ``domestic
operation'' to mean any scheduled operation in specified airplanes
``between any points within the 48 contiguous States of the United
States or the District of Columbia'' (2)(i); ``between any points
entirely within any State, territory, or possession of the United
States'' (2)(ii); or ``between any point within the 48 contiguous
States of the United States or the District of Columbia and any
specifically authorized point located outside the 48 contiguous States
of the United States or the District of Columbia'' (2)(iii).
The only comment received on this proposed definition is the
comment on its inclusion of a tour operation that departs from and
returns to same point which is discussed earlier. One change in the
proposed definition is replacing the words ``any required crewmember''
with the words ``each crewmember'' to be consistent with the treatment
of the single-engine Otter airplane as previously discussed.
Additionally, the final rule has been slightly modified to include some
of the language currently used in SFAR 38-2.
``Flag operation''. Proposed Sec. 119.3 defined ``flag operation''
to mean a scheduled operation conducted in specified airplanes
``between any point within the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii
or any territory or possession of the United States and any point
outside the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any territory or
possession of the United States, respectively'' (2)(i); or ``between
any point within the 48 contiguous States of the United States or the
District of Columbia and any point outside the 48 contiguous States or
the District of Columbia (2)(ii).
Comments: AACA comments that currently Alaskan operations conducted
under part 121 are conducted under the flag rules of part 121.
According to the commenter, a number of Alaska operators currently hold
operating authority and operations specifications to fly scheduled or
charter service to Canada, and to the Commonwealth of Independent
States (the Russian Federation). The commenter states that the
rulemaking should clarify what operating rules are to be used for
operations that previously operated solely under flag rules. According
to the commenter, since most of the flights to the Russian Federation
are on-demand, the impact of part 119 on these flights needs to be
thoroughly analyzed.
FAA Response: Other than minor changes, the proposed definition of
``flag operations'' remains in the final rule as proposed. Accordingly,
scheduled operations conducted under part 121 between a point in Alaska
to a point outside of Alaska will be considered flag operations.
Scheduled operations between a point in Alaska and another point in
Alaska will be considered domestic operations. In fact, scheduled
operations from one point in Alaska (or any other state) to the same
point are considered domestic operations. Nonscheduled operations,
whether between points within Alaska or between a point in Alaska and a
point outside of Alaska, will be considered supplemental operations or
on-demand.
One minor change in the definition adds operations between two
foreign points to the list of locations included as flag operations.
``Maximum payload capacity''. The proposed definition for ``maximum
payload capacity'' is the same as the one currently used in SFAR 38-2,
except for the allowances for determining the standard average weights
for crewmembers.
Comments: GAMA comments that the standard oil allowance of 350
pounds found in the definition of ``maximum payload capacity'' should
be changed to coincide with the type certificated oil value. The
commenter points out that the 350 pound value greatly exceeds any value
found among present and future 10-19 passenger commuter airplane
designs. Fairchild suggests that the definition refer to ``full oil''
and that the specific 350 pound allowance should be deleted. RAA states
that the definition uses obsolete values for minimum oil and fuel and
recommends that the FAA eliminate the distinction in the
[[Page 65881]]
definition between aircraft with and without a maximum zero fuel weight
and eliminate specific minimum weights for crewmembers, oil, and fuel.
FAA Response: In response to comments on the standard oil
allowance, the FAA has revised the standard oil allowance in the
definition of ``maximum payload capacity'' to add: ``or the oil
capacity as specified on the Type Certificate Data Sheet.'' The FAA did
not eliminate specific weights for crewmembers, oil, and fuel from the
definition, as requested by commenters, because these weights are
necessary guidelines for determining maximum payload capacity. They are
not operational weight values but are used merely to establish the air
operator certification and operation requirements for all-cargo and
combination of cargo and passenger aircraft. This definition is not
used in the computation of weight and balance.
``On-demand operation'' and ``Supplemental operation''. The
definitions of ``on-demand operation'' and ``supplemental operation''
were rewritten for Notice 95-5 to make it clearer which operations fall
into these categories. The proposed definitions did not change
significantly from current rules or from the original 1988 NPRM, except
for one important difference. Notice 95-5 does not change the basic
dividing line between on-demand and supplemental operations. A
configuration of more than 30 passenger seats or a payload capacity of
more than 7,500 pounds is a supplemental operation, while a
configuration of 30 or less passenger seats and a payload of capacity
of 7,500 pounds or less is an on-demand operation. However, if a
specific airplane with a passenger-seating configuration of 10 to 30
seats is used in domestic or flag operations as a result of this rule,
any nonscheduled operation conducted with that airplane must be
conducted under the part 121 supplemental rules, instead of under the
on-demand rules of part 135.
Comments: Fairchild Aircraft suggests that airplanes' switching
between regulatory parts should not be difficult and asks that the FAA
eliminate all unnecessarily burdensome conformity, equipment, and
record checks.
FAA Response: This requirement is necessary because an airplane
must be listed in a certificate holder's operations specifications as
either a part 121 or a part 135 airplane; it cannot be switched back
and forth between parts without a major investment of time and
resources by both the certificate holder and the FAA. Switching between
parts entails many things, including airplane conformity checks,
equipment checks, and record checks. These are all necessary checks
that the FAA must perform to fulfill its safety oversight function.
Section 119.5--Certifications, Authorizations, and Prohibitions.
This section identifies the type of certificate (air carrier or
operating) the Administrator issues to certificate holders, depending
on the nature of their operations, and specifies certain authorizations
and prohibitions associated with those certificates for specific types
of certificate holders.
Comments: A commenter claims that the distinction between the air
carrier certificate and the operating certificate is ambiguous. He
poses two questions: ``Why would we prohibit a 737, 121 certificated,
intrastate, common carriage operator (who presumably would have an
operating certificate) from engaging in other common carrier
operations?'' The second question is ``why would we prohibit a part 121
common carriage operator with an air carrier certificate from providing
non-common carriage?''
FAA Response: An intrastate common carrier who wishes to conduct
interstate operations must first obtain economic authority to conduct
those operations from the Department of Transportation. Once that
authority is granted, the FAA would issue an air carrier certificate to
that operator if the FAA concluded that the operator could safely
conduct those operations. In regard to the distinction between common
carriage and noncommon carriage, the essential difference is the
presence or absence of a holding out. The FAA believes that an operator
engaged in common carriage (holding out) cannot unequivocally claim
that it can engage in a noncommon carriage operation that would not
have benefited from the holding out activities of the common carriage
operation.
Section 119.7--Operations Specifications. In Sec. 119.7 the FAA
proposed identifying items that must be contained in each certificate
holder's operations specifications. No comments were received on this
issue and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Section 119.9--Use of Business Names. In this section, the FAA
proposed to prohibit certificate holders that operate airplanes under
part 121 or 135 from using a business name other than the name
appearing in a certificate holder's operations specifications. The FAA
proposed that the name of the certificate holder conducting the
operation must be displayed on the airplane and clearly visible and
readable to a person standing on the ground at any time except during
flight time, and that the means of displaying the name must be
acceptable to the Administrator.
Comments: Gulfstream Air, NATA, RAA, SP Aircraft, and two
individuals address the requirement to have the certificate holder's
name on the aircraft. Four recommend that the requirement not apply to
on-demand operations. One opposes the requirement because, as an on-
demand operator, his customers often do not want the name of an airline
appearing on the aircraft, but rather prefer to arrive in what is
believed to be their corporate aircraft. One commenter supports the
proposal but recommends that the name of the certificate holder should
be near to and visible from the main cabin entry door, not just
anywhere on the aircraft. Commenters request clarification of ``clearly
readable and visible'' since this could imply that very large letters
must be used. Also, three commenters indicate that the phrase
``acceptable to the Administrator'' needs to be defined.
FAA Response: The purpose of this requirement is for the FAA to be
able to identify, primarily for purposes of ramp inspections, those who
appear to have operational control of the airplane. Some carriers use
names for their businesses other than their corporate name. These are
often called ``doing-business-as'' or ``DBA'' names. All of a
certificate holder's DBA names must be listed in its operations
specifications. A certificate holder may also paint a DBA name on the
outside of the aircraft. However, in order to be in compliance with
this section, the certificate holder's name must also appear on the
outside of the aircraft.
Because this regulation applies to airplanes ranging in size from a
small reciprocating-engine-powered airplane to a Boeing 747, it is not
practical for the FAA to define the size letters that would be
required. Any means of identification which satisfies this requirement
is acceptable, including signs temporarily affixed in windows or on the
door or fuselage of the airplane.
The term ``acceptable to the Administrator'' is interpreted to mean
acceptable to an authorized representative of the Administrator. In
this case, a certificate holder's principal inspector would determine
if the means of displaying the name is acceptable, based on written
guidance from FAA Headquarters. The final rule is the same as proposed.
Section 119.21--Direct air carriers and commercial operators
engaged in intrastate common carriage with airplanes. Section 119.21
contains the regulatory roadmap that requires domestic, flag, and
supplemental operations to be conducted under part
[[Page 65882]]
121 and commuter and on-demand operations to be conducted under part
135. Section 119.21(a)(3) states that the Administrator may authorize
or require that (1) Certain certificate holders conducting supplemental
operations between airports that are also served by the air carrier's
domestic or flag operations, conduct those operations under the
domestic or flag rules; and (2) certain all-cargo operations that
regularly and frequently serve the same two airports may be required to
be conducted under the domestic or flag rules.
Comments: The National Air Carrier Association (NACA) recommends
deleting ``or require'' in the second sentence of proposed
Sec. 119.21(a)(3). The language goes far beyond the current language of
SFAR 38-2.4(a)(3) or part 121 in its application to supplemental
passenger operations conducted ``between points that are also served by
the certificate holder's domestic or flag operations.'' The preamble
does not provide sufficient explanation or justification to require the
application of domestic or flag operating requirements to supplemental
passenger operations that are operated over routes where an operator
also has domestic or flag operations. There are sufficient economic and
operational safeguards already in place to preclude abuse. NACA
believes that what ``may be required'' will quickly become ``what is
required,'' with the FAA unilaterally imposing the requirement to
operate certain nonscheduled passenger operations under domestic or
flag rules. There is no safety or accident history to justify more
restrictive regulations. NACA concurs that frequency of service between
a pair of points should not be the criterion for determining which
rules apply.
FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the comments from NACA on the
wording of the rule and the words ``or require'' have been removed in
the final rule.
Section 119.25--Rotorcraft operations. Section 119.25 directs that
all rotorcraft operations be conducted under part 135 regardless of the
size or seating capacity of the rotorcraft. However, external-load
operators and agricultural aircraft operators must comply with part 133
or part 137 of the FAR, respectively.
Notice 95-5 proposed to rescind part 127 because rotorcraft
operators that previously operated under part 127 are directed in
Sec. 119.25 to conduct those operations under part 135. Part 135 has
been more recently updated and, therefore, provides a more appropriate
level of safety for rotorcraft operators than part 127.
Comments: HAI opposes removing part 127 at this time. HAI supports
a review and update of this part in the future, but states that to
simply remove this part now would be to allow the certificate-issuing
district office unlimited discretionary powers in the design of
appropriate operations specifications.
FAA Response: Part 127 is not a current part because SFAR 38-2
directed all rotorcraft operators to conduct their operations under
part 135. Appropriate operations specifications for each certificate
holder operating either airplanes or any size rotorcraft are developed
by FAA Headquarters. The standard paragraphs are completely designed by
Headquarters, while nonstandard paragraphs are reviewed and concurred
on by Headquarters. Therefore, the certificate-holding district office
does not have unlimited discretionary powers.
Section 119.33--General requirements. In Sec. 119.33 the FAA
proposed that applicants for certificates be required to conduct the
proving tests required for certification under the appropriate
requirements of part 121 or part 135. The purpose of the tests is to
demonstrate (as one of the last steps in the certification process)
that the applicant is qualified and eligible to receive a certificate.
The change permits applicants to complete the certification process
without having to obtain either a deviation or certification to conduct
operations under part 125. The FAA also proposed to amend
Secs. 121.163, 125.1, and 135.145 to make the proving test requirements
consistent in those parts. No comments were received on these
Sec. 119.33 issues and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Section 119.35--Certificate application. This section requires a
certificate applicant to submit the application 90 days prior to the
intended date of operation instead of the current standard of 60 days.
This length of time accounts for the actual amount of time required by
the FAA to properly process applications and to allow for agency
documentation in the formal review period.
Paragraphs (c) through (h) of this section are a recodification of
Secs. 121.47, 121.48, and 121.49, which deal generally with the
disclosure of financial information and of people/entities that would
control the new certificate holder, applicable only to two categories
of carriers: those who are not air carriers and those applying for
authority to engage in intrastate common carriage but have not
undergone fitness review by the Department of Transportation. The FAA
believes that these requirements are crucial to ensuring safety by
providing a check of financial, management, and other information about
of the certificate holder and his or her ability to conduct safe
operations.
Comments: NATA expresses concern about the utility of requiring
detailed financial reporting, because safety problems are ``more
appropriately discovered through operational inspections'' than through
financial data. SP Aircraft comments that requiring detailed financial
reporting seems excessive for small craft operators of on demand
service since this requirement has not been proposed before now, and no
explanation was provided for it in Notice 95-5. This commenter shares
the concern that the reporting of financial records would in no way
enhance the safety of operations that the FAA claims this proposal
serves. Additionally, the commenter criticizes the requirement for
insurance in that requiring the applicant to have insurance prior to
submitting the application is an unnecessary burden due to the
uncertain time span before application and review is complete. Thus, it
recommends requiring that insurance should be in place before
operations begin.
Fairchild Aircraft comments that Sec. 119.35 fails to define the
requirements for submitting detailed financial data, and recommends
that the FAA establish the minimum qualifications that must be met
under part 119, subpart C.
FAA Response: The financial reporting requirements in
Sec. 119.35(c) through (h) apply only to persons who are not air
carriers, commonly called ``commercial operators,'' and who are
applying for authority to engage in intrastate common carriage but have
not undergone a fitness review by the Department of Transportation. The
rule language has been updated to make it consistent with new
definitions and certification requirements applicable to these
operators. For persons applying for authority to conduct intrastate
common carriage operations under part 135 these would be new
requirements, as commenters point out. The FAA believes these
requirements are necessary because financial information, management
information, and information concerning who controls the certificate
holder can reveal potential shortcomings on the applicant's ability to
conduct a safe operation. The requirement for insurance information in
Sec. 119.35(h)(7) provides that the applicant report the period of
coverage, not that it be in
[[Page 65883]]
effect before the application is submitted. Therefore the date that
insurance coverage begins can be coordinated with the estimated date
that operations begin. In order to make it clear that Sec. 119.35 (c)
through (h) apply only to applicants who are commercial operators, the
final rule includes cross references within paragraphs (c) through (h),
and paragraphs (g) and (h) have been switched.
Section 119.41--Amending a certificate. FAA proposed new procedures
for making changes to the operating certificate. These procedures,
modeled after 49 U.S.C. Section 44709 and similar to the procedures
used to amend operations specifications, would standardize the
amendment process. Applications for amendments to certificates would
have to be submitted 15 days in advance of the time the operator wants
the amendments to be effective, unless the Administrator approves a
shorter period when circumstances warrant. No comments were received on
this issue and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Section 119.47--Maintaining a principal base of operations, main
operations base, and main maintenance base; change of address. Section
119.47 requires that a certificate holder maintain a principal base of
operations and allows the certificate holder to establish a main
operation and main maintenance base. Written notification must be
provided to the certificate-holding district office before establishing
or relocating a principal base of operation, a main operations base, or
a main maintenance base. The proposed terminology clarified that the
FAA needs to know the location of the primary point of contact between
the FAA and the certificate holder. Certificate holders would no longer
be required to report changes of address for business offices. No
comments were received on this issue and the final rule is adopted as
proposed.
Section 119.49--Contents of operations specifications. Section
119.49 requires that each certificate holder obtain operations
specifications that list other business names under which the
certificate holder may operate. Under part 121, there are no
restrictions on the use of alternate business names on their operating
certificates. Part 135 currently requires certificate holders to list
their alternate business names on their operating certificates. The FAA
proposed to require that alternate business names be shown on the
operations specifications rather than on the operating certificate. No
comments were received on this issue and the final rule is adopted as
proposed.
Section 119.49 adds the requirement that operations specifications
contain a reference to the economic authority issued by the OST. The
economic authority issued by the OST is not a new requirement; the FAA
proposed this reference to clarify that the requirement still exists.
No comments were received on this issue and the final rule is adopted
as proposed.
Section 119.49 also requires a certificate holder conducting
domestic, flag, or commuter operations to obtain operations
specifications that list each type of aircraft authorized for use and
each aircraft's registration markings and serial number. Under part
121, the requirement to list registration markings is not required for
domestic, flag, or commuter operations. The FAA proposed this
requirement in the interest of consistency and to facilitate FAA
enforcement and surveillance functions. No comments were received on
this issue and the final rule is adopted as proposed.
Section 119.51--Amending Operations Specifications. Under
Sec. 119.51 applications for amendments to operations specifications
would have to be submitted 15 days in advance for minor or routine
amendments; however the FAA proposed to require that certificate
holders file applications to amend operations specifications at least
90 days before the date proposed by the applicant for the amendment to
become effective in cases of mergers; acquisition or airline
operational assets that require an additional showing of safety (e.g.,
proving tests); changes in the kind of operation as defined in
Sec. 119.3; resumption of operations following a suspension of
operations as a result of bankruptcy actions; or the initial
introduction of aircraft not before proven for use in air carrier or
commercial operator operations. It has been the FAA's experience that
these types of major changes do take at least 90 days for the agency to
determine that, as a result of the change, the applicant is properly
and adequately equipped and is able to conduct a safe operation.
Under Sec. 119.51(b), if the Administrator initiates an amendment
to operations specifications, the certificate holder would have 7 days
to submit written information or arguments on the amendment.
Under Sec. 119.51(d), a certificate holder may petition for
reconsideration of a decision on an amendment to operations
specifications. If the amendment is not related to an emergency
situation, the petition suspends the effectiveness of the amendment.
Comments: USAIR Express, RAA, Mesa, ASA address the required lead
times proposed for making either desired or directed changes to
operations specifications. Commenters state that the proposed
requirements to file an air carrier-desired operations specifications
change 90 days before the effective date is excessive. Additionally,
the requirement to respond to changes in operations specifications
within 7 days when directed by the Administrator and complete
implementation within 30 days is unreasonable.
An individual, ASA, and RAA indicate that the proposed language in
Sec. 119.51(d) would not permit the continuation of the practice of
staying the effectiveness of an amendment when an air carrier submits a
petition for reconsideration. The commenters recommend that the
petition for reconsideration stay the effective date of an amendment
pending the final review of the petition.
FAA Response: In response to comments that a request to change
operations specifications must be filed 90 days in advance of the
desired effective date, the FAA will add ``unless a shorter time is
approved'' to Sec. 119.51(c)(1)(i) so as not to imply that a carrier
must allow the full 90 days. The rest of paragraph (c) reflects current
part 121 and part 135 language and is adopted as proposed.
Since Sec. 119.51(d)(3) clearly states that, if a petition for
reconsideration is filed within 30 days and if no emergency situation
exists, the effectiveness of an amendment to operations specifications
issued by the certificate-holding district office is stayed pending
final review of the petition. The procedures for emergency situations,
spelled out in paragraph (e), are not substantially different than
currently found in Secs. 121.79 and 135.17. Therefore there will be no
changes to current procedures as a result of new Sec. 119.51 (d) and
(e).
Section 119.53--Wet leasing of aircraft and other transportation by
air arrangements. Proposed Sec. 119.53 on wet leasing would be revised
from current Sec. 121.6 to do the following: (1) clarify that the
leasing requirements pertain only to wet leasing (which is defined in
Sec. 119.3 as a lease of an aircraft that includes the provision of any
crewmember); (2) extend the wet leasing requirements to part 135
operations; (3) prohibit a wet lease from a foreign air carrier or any
other foreign person; (4) prohibit a wet lease from any person not
authorized to engage in common
[[Page 65884]]
carriage; (5) specify that the Administrator, upon approval of the wet
lease, would determine which party to the agreement has operational
control and would amend the appropriate operations specifications of
both parties, if necessary; and (6) allow a wet lease charter flight to
transport passengers who are stranded because of the cancellation of
their scheduled flight, provided that the wet lease flight is
authorized by OST or the Administrator, as applicable, and that the
charter flight is conducted under the rules applicable to a
supplemental or on-demand operation. These clarifications reflect for
the most part current administrative procedures.
Comments: NACA proposes reorganization of Sec. 119.53, including a
new paragraph regarding operations specifications for short term wet
leases (short term substitute service) that could occur without prior
FAA approval in a situation where there is insufficient time to permit
compliance with the usual requirements for a wet lease.
USAir Express sees this issue as an example of part 119 addressing
changes which are not relevant to the goal of bringing commuter
operations up to the standards of part 121, and imposing new
restrictions on wet lease activities at the same time. This company
finds fault with the fact that Sec. 119.53 requires certificate holders
conducting operations to be held to the same operations authorities as
certificate holders arranging for the substitute operations.
British Airways objects to Sec. 119.53 because it prohibits any wet
leasing to U.S. carriers from foreign air carriers without any safety
justification. British Airways sees this prohibition as interfering
with healthy competitive relationships between carriers in an
international market. Japan Airlines agrees with British Airways' point
and adds that this ``discriminatory'' prohibition contradicts the
Department of Transportation's economic regulations providing for wet
leasing of aircraft by foreign air carriers to U.S. air carriers. Japan
Airlines argues that foreign air carriers are permitted to operate
aircraft in the U.S. only if they meet rigorous requirements of part
129 of the FAA regulations, which would imply that these aircraft are
safe. Japan Airlines also claims that this regulation might be contrary
to a friendship treaty between the United States and Japan. The company
suggests that the FAA address any specific foreign carrier safety
concerns with something other than a blanket prohibition of the type
proposed.
FAA Response: The changes to current requirements for wet leasing
in Sec. 119.53 codify existing FAA policy on wet leasing. The FAA
requires operators conducting wet leasing operations to hold operations
specifications for the same kind of operation as that being conducted
in order to be sure that the operator is qualified to conduct that kind
of operation. Since foreign air carriers may conduct operations only
under part 129, they do not hold operations specifications for current
part 121 or part 135 certificate holders and, therefore, may not
conduct wet leasing operations for part 121 or part 135 certificate
holders. The FAA is considering NACA's suggestion regarding short term
wet leasing and intends to request that ARAC develop recommendations on
this issue. Regulatory language is amended to allow short notice wet
lease operations to be conducted prior to providing information
required by Sec. 119.53(c).
Section 119.55--Obtaining deviation authority to perform operations
under a U.S. military contract. Proposed Sec. 119.55 establishes a new
procedure to obtain deviation authority to perform under a U.S.
military contract. This would require the certificate holder to submit
this deviation authority request to DOD's Air Mobility Command (AMC),
who would review the request and, in turn, forward it and the AMC
recommendation on to the FAA for final review. The logic behind having
the AMC review this is to provide an additional, and more efficient,
evaluation by a more qualified authority on the needs of the military
operation.
Comments: One commenter expresses concern about the FAA's need to
have the AMC serve as an extra check on FAA knowledge of deviation
authority. The commenter states that adding another agency to the
process does not serve the interest of readiness, for during military
operations, the demands from the military come ``fast and furious with
many changes.''
FAA Response: As the FAA explained in Notice 95-5, during the
Desert Shield/Desert Storm operations, the agency was inundated with
requests for deviations. The AMC has the resources to consolidate these
requests, identify the specific regulations from which relief is
sought, and evaluate the requests to determine whether the relief
sought would be needed to accomplish the military mission. This
procedure will enable the agency to process these requests more
efficiently, should the need arise in the future.
Emergency Operations (Secs. 119.57 & 119.58). These two proposed
new sections generally recodify Secs. 121.57(c), 121.557, 121.559, and
135.19. Section 119.57 addresses emergency situations where it is
impossible for the certificate holder who intends to conduct emergency
operations to act without thorough and complex planning, such as during
natural disasters like floods or earthquakes. Section 119.58 is
tailored to emergency operations where thorough and complex planning
are inherently impossible due to the critical issue of time and the
nature of the emergency.
Comments: Three commenters express concern about this proposed
section. One of the commenters believes that this consolidation of two
related yet distinct categories would cause confusion: ``Section 119.57
relates to certificate authority to conduct certain operations on an
emergency approval basis, while Sec. 119.58 relates to emergency
operational situations that may require emergency deviation from
prescribed procedures and methods, weather minimums, and FARs to the
extent required for flight safety.'' The commenter recommends renaming
Sec. 119.57 to read ``Obtaining Emergency Deviation Authority to
Perform Unapproved Operations'' and Sec. 119.58 to be ``Operational
Emergencies Requiring Immediate Decision and Action.'' Additionally,
the commenter expresses concern that Sec. 119.58(b) needs to be
modified to more clearly reflect dispatcher capability/responsibility,
joint responsibility, and a cross-check mechanism to ensure critical
operational decisions are not made at the exclusion of safety.
Another commenter states that while he supports the NPRM, he
believes that this recodification would cause greater confusion and
contradict the purpose of existing safety rules because it goes beyond
the scope of the NPRM. He claims that ``[t]he two types of `Emergency
Authority' are of totally different contexts, are truly irrelevant to
each other and there is no apparent advantage to this proposed
modification''; hence, this proposed action is ``clearly unwarranted.''
The Airline Dispatchers Federation objects to the recodification of
Secs. 121.557, 121.559, and 135.19 as new Sec. 119.58 on the grounds
that emergency procedures are an operational issue, not a certification
issue and thus should be located in the operational rules of part 121
and 135.
FAA Response: The FAA accepts the commenters' suggestions.
Therefore Sec. 119.58 does not appear in final part 119. Instead
Secs. 121.557, 121.559 and 135.19 will be retained in parts 121 and
135. However, the substance of proposed Sec. 119.57 on obtaining
[[Page 65885]]
deviation authority for certain emergency operations does not appear in
current part 121 or part 135. Therefore, this section is retained in
the final rule. This new section will provide procedures for such
situations as the recent hurricane in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Deviation authority was needed in order to allow rescue and supply
flights into and out of damaged airports.
Section 119.59--Conducting tests and inspections. In Sec. 119.59,
the FAA proposed language to emphasize both the authority of FAA
inspectors to gain access to a certificate holder's books and records
and the fact that a certificate holder risks suspension of part or all
of its operations specifications if it fails to provide that access.
Without access to those records, the FAA cannot fulfill its safety
mission. No comments were received on this issue and the final rule is
adopted as proposed.
Section 119.61--Duration of certificate and operations
specifications. Section 119.61 sets out the conditions under which
certificates or operations specifications become ineffective.
Comments: Two commenters recommend that when operations
specifications are changed or superseded, the carrier should be
required to surrender the obsolete copies to the FAA. This would
preclude the chance of outdated operations specifications being in the
hands of the ``field operators.''
FAA Response: It is the responsibility of the certificate holder to
have procedures in place to ensure that the most current copies of the
operations specifications are adequately and accurately distributed.
The FAA is not requiring that outdated operations specifications be
surrendered to the FAA because of the administrative burden that such a
requirement would entail. However, the FAA has decided to incorporate
into Sec. 119.61 a new paragraph (c), which contains the Sec. 135.35
language for surrender of operations specifications and certificate if
a certificate holder terminates business.
Section 119.63--Recency of operation. Proposed Sec. 119.63 would
prohibit a certificate holder from conducting a kind of operation if
that kind of operation has not been conducted for a period of 30
consecutive days. The certificate holder must advise the Administrator
at least 5 consecutive calendar days prior to resumption of that kind
of operation and make itself available for any FAA reexamination that
the FAA considers necessary.
Comments: Eight commenters address this proposed requirement. One
says that 30 days is too short a period and recommends a 6-12 month
period. NACA recommends a 6-month period. Comair comments that the
requirement is burdensome to active air carriers wanting to conduct
supplemental operations; this commenter says that the requirement
should be changed to apply to certificate holders or air carriers who
have not conducted any operations, not just a particular kind of
operation, in the previous 30 calendar days. A similar comment is made
by another individual. NACA comments that this requirement is
burdensome to air carriers conducting any type of operation (domestic,
flag, or supplemental), especially to carriers who provide these
services under short-term, short notice wet leases. USAir Express
states that the proposed rule would seriously impact the ability of
part 121 domestic and flag operators to conduct occasional supplemental
operations since these operations are often required on less than 5
days notice. Also, since many part 121 certificate holders conduct
their supplemental operations using the same procedures as their
scheduled operations, there is no benefit from this requirement. SP
Aircraft says that the requirement would be burdensome to on-demand
small aircraft operators and to the FAA and that the rule should
provide relief for these certificate holders.
Mesa and RAA point out that the proposed rule is unclear in its use
of the term ``kind of operation'' and recommend that the FAA define
this term.
FAA Response: In response to comments, the FAA has made the
following changes to Sec. 119.63 in the final rule:
If part 121 and part 135 scheduled operators do not conduct
scheduled operations for more than 30 days, the 5-day notification
provision would apply. For part 121 and 135 scheduled operators, no
notification is required to conduct supplemental or on-demand
operations provided they continue to conduct scheduled operations
without being dormant for more than 30 days.
Part 121 supplemental operators or part 135 on-demand operators who
have not conducted supplemental or on-demand operations for more than
90 days must notify the FAA at least 5 days before resuming operations.
In response to the comment to define ``kind of operations,''
Sec. 119.3 defines five kinds of operation as one of the various
operations a certificate holder is authorized to conduct as specified
in the operations specifications; that is, domestic, flag,
supplemental, commuter, or on-demand.
Management Requirements (Proposed Sections 119.65 through 119.71).
Notice 95-5 proposed to consolidate management personnel requirements
for operations conducted under part 135 or part 121 into new part 119
and to apply management personnel requirements to domestic and flag
operations. The management personnel requirements for operations
conducted under part 135 (Secs. 119.69 and 119.71) would be
substantially the same as those currently in Secs. 135.37 and 135.39.
The management personnel requirements for operations conducted under
part 121 (Secs. 119.65 and 119.67) would be similar to those currently
in Secs. 121.59 and 121.61, which now apply only to supplemental
operations.
The only significant changes under the proposed management
requirements for part 121 and part 135 are as follows:
Director of safety. The FAA proposed that each certificate holder
that conducts operations under part 121 must have a director of safety.
This person would be responsible for keeping the highest management
officials of the certificate holder fully informed about the safety
status of the certificate holder's entire operation. The FAA believes
that an independent, full time position is important if at all
available or possible. However, it recognizes that in smaller
operations, the director of safety function may be an additional
function of a current manager. Section 119.65(b) provides flexibility
in the requirements for positions and number of positions for
management personnel, including the director of safety.
Director of operations. The FAA proposed for Sec. 119.67(a) to
require a director of operations to have both 3 years experience as a
PIC of an aircraft under part 121 or part 135 and 3 years supervisory
experience in a position that exercised control over any operations
conducted with aircraft under part 121 or part 135.
In the case of a person becoming a director of operations for the
first time, the FAA proposed that the PIC experience in large aircraft
be recent, i.e., 3 years of experience within the past 6 years. (See
proposed Sec. 119.67(a)(3)(i).) Additionally, for all directors of
operation under part 121, the minimum of 3 years of supervisory or
managerial experience must have been obtained within the last 6 years.
(See proposed Sec. 119.67(a)(2).)
Additionally, for operations conducted under part 135, the FAA
proposed that the director of operations have the following experience:
(1) At least 3 years of supervisory or managerial experience within
the last 6 years, in a position that exercised
[[Page 65886]]
operational control over any operations conducted under part 121 or
part 135; or
(2) For a person with previous experience as a director of
operations, at least 3 years experience as a PIC of aircraft operated
under part 121 or part 135; or for a person becoming a director of
operations for the first time, the 3 years of PIC experience must have
been obtained within the past 6 years.
Director of maintenance. To standardize the certificates required
for the director of maintenance, proposed Sec. 119.67(c) and 119.71(e)
would require that a director of maintenance hold a current mechanic
certificate with both airframe and powerplant ratings.
Also, the requirement in present Sec. 135.39(c) that the required
experience in maintaining aircraft must include the recency
requirements of Sec. 65.83 has been added to proposed Sec. 119.67(c)
and carried over to proposed Sec. 119.71(e).
Chief pilot. Proposed Sec. 119.71(c)(1) and (d)(1) omitted the word
``current'' from existing Sec. 135.39(b)(1) and (b)(2) because these
pilot certificates no longer have an expiration date and are revoked
only for cause. The words ``and be qualified to serve as PIC in at
least one type of aircraft used in the certificate holder's operation''
are added to clarify that the chief pilot must meet recency of
experience requirements and medical requirements.
In addition to holding the appropriate certificate, in order to be
eligible to be a chief pilot in part 121 or 135 operations, a person
must have at least 3 years experience as a PIC of aircraft operated
under parts 121 or 135. However, if that person is becoming a chief
pilot for the first time, the 3 years experience must have been
obtained within the previous 6 years.
Chief inspector. Proposed Sec. 119.67(d) requires a chief inspector
for each operator conducting part 121 operations. In addition to the
existing eligibility requirements, the chief inspector would be
required to have at least 1 year of experience in a supervisory
position maintaining large aircraft.
Deviation authority. Proposed Secs. 119.67(e) and 119.71(f)
authorize the Manager of the Flight Standards Division in the region of
the certificate-holding district office to authorize a certificate
holder to employ a person who does not meet the qualifications in
proposed Secs. 119.67 or 119.71. For a certificate holder or applicant
that wants to employ a person who does not hold the required airman
certificate (e.g., ATP certificate, commercial pilot certificate,
airframe and powerplant certificate), the deviation authority sections
would not cover such a lack of airman certification situation. The
deviation authority provides a means for competent and qualified
personnel who do not meet the management personnel qualifications to be
employed in required positions.
Comments: A number of commenters responded to the proposed
management requirements for part 119. These are discussed below.
Director of Safety. United Express comments that the creation of
the director of safety position is in the best interest of the flying
public but that the position's responsibilities will depend on airline
size, equipment, and type of operations. This commenter says that for
small certificate holders, the chief pilot or current director of
operations could assume the duties. United Express also says that this
position should qualify under current Sec. 121.61.
NTSB and several other commenters say that the director of safety
should be independent from operational functions and have direct access
to the highest levels of management.
ALPA recommends that in code-sharing operations, the director of
safety should report directly to the mainline Safety Vice President; if
a code sharer does not have a director of safety, then code-sharing
pilots should have access to the mainline safety organization. ALPA
also recommends that the director of safety maintain a toll free
telephone hotline. In addition, ALPA recommends that the director of
safety's qualifications include at least 3 years of supervisory
experience and possession of one of the following: an Airline Transport
Pilot (ATP) license, Airframe and Powerplant (A & P) license or
Dispatcher license, or demonstration of other approved equivalent
aeronautical training.
Fairchild states that a separate director of safety position is
unnecessarily burdensome and that safety is a concern of all managers.
This commenter recommends changing Sec. 119.65(a) so that the director
of safety is not required to be a full-time position.
Comair, ASA, Gulfstream, and RAA say that Sec. 119.67 does not
provide any qualification requirements for the director of safety.
These commenters request that the FAA permit certificate holders to
designate directors of safety based upon their needs and without an FAA
approval process.
Big Sky Airlines and NATA recommend that smaller certificate
holders be allowed to combine the director of safety position with an
already existing position. Metro International Airways also points out
the burden of this requirement on small certificate holders (e.g.,
those with 10-15 employees or one or two aircraft). This commenter
recommends that these certificate holders be allowed to determine which
management personnel, especially the director of safety and chief
inspector, are needed and to combine these and other positions as well.
One commenter recommends that smaller operations be permitted to
employ contracted or part-time safety officers who could act for more
than one carrier. This could reduce these certificate holders'
financial burden associated with hiring additional personnel.
One commenter recommends that the director of safety have direct
communication paths with dispatch, maintenance, flight attendant, and
ground operations.
Samoa Air also points out that the requirement for additional
management personnel for certificate holders with three or fewer
aircraft is burdensome and that a proper internal evaluation program
should keep management informed of the certificate holder's safety
status.
One commenter says that Sec. 119.69 does not require a part 135
certificate holder to have a director of safety and that this position
should be required for these certificate holders.
One commenter recommends that the director of safety be excluded
from enforcement action similar to the Aviation Safety Reporting System
under Sec. 91.25.
Inter Island recommends that the safety officer be any line pilot
with 6 months experience with the company and that this position be
kept from the working ranks of line pilots. According to the commenter,
this function should not be given to the chief pilot or director of
operations.
Other comments on management requirements: USAir Express says that
the requirements of this proposed section are burdensome to large
certificate holders because it imposes requirements which are designed
for small certificate holders onto these large certificate holders.
This commenter states that large certificate holders might have many
positions at the Vice President or Director's level to fulfill these
management functions that a small certificate holder would fulfill
through the positions of director of operations, director of
maintenance, chief pilot or chief inspector. This commenter also notes
that the management of large carriers is more complex, involving
knowledge of such areas as labor relations, legal issues, finance, and
quality assurance. To
[[Page 65887]]
assume that these subjects can be mastered while also obtaining the
required number of years of experience for each management position is
unrealistic. Finally, this commenter objects to the explanation of
deviation authority regarding the allowance of unlicensed persons to
hold management positions and says that it is inconsistent with the
language of the proposed rule itself.
Fairchild Aircraft finds Sec. 119.67 to be more stringent than its
corresponding section in part 121 (Sec. 121.61). This commenter
suggests that Sec. 119.67(a)(1) be changed to allow the director of
operations to hold or have held an ATP certificate and also to delete
the words ``large aircraft'' in order to recognize that not all former
part 135 certificate holders have been operating large airplanes.
RAA and many other commenters support ``grandfathering'' existing
key management personnel in the wake of the proposed rule's more
stringent experience and qualification requirements. These commenters
point out that existing personnel, such as the directors of operations
and maintenance, chief pilot, and chief inspector, may already possess
excellent management skills, and that to hire new personnel would be
unnecessary and burdensome. Action Airlines suggests that instead of
having to replace existing personnel when air carriers upgrade their
equipment, they should have the option to get deviation or wavier
authority and continue to use existing directors of operations, chief
pilots, and directors of maintenance.
Metro International Airways states that the addition of management
personnel would have a significant impact on operators that only
operate two or three affected aircraft. The positions of chief
inspector can be handled effectively by the director of maintenance.
With such a small fleet of aircraft, the chief inspector would spend
many hours idle. Also, a small commuter is more likely to contract out
most, if not all, maintenance functions. In this situation, the
director of maintenance could easily oversee that all work is completed
to FAA standards and signed off by an appropriate person with an IA
rating.
The commenter also opposes the proposed increase in management
experience, indicating it will have a significant impact on small and
proposed commuter airlines. Not only will higher wages be needed to
attract those applicants that have the necessary experience, but the
operators will need to lure those who qualify from secure positions
within the industry. The commenter requests that the FAA define
``large,'' stating there is a difference between a B747 and a Beech
1900C. The commenter recommends that the FAA retain the part 135
provision that allows the combinations of one or more of the required
management personnel. As the airline grows it is understandable that
the management functions would separate and the manager's experience
level would rise. The addition of a chief inspector and a director of
safety would create a top heavy airline that could not operate at a
reasonable cost. Combining these positions must be allowed so new
entrants with small fleets will have the chance to build an
organization proudly serving the public and the public's interest.
American supports modifying the minimum requirements for director
of operations, chief pilot, director of maintenance, and chief
inspector under Sec. 135.37 operations to reflect part 121 standards.
One commenter objects to the proposed requirement that a director
of maintenance have 5 years experience in the past 5 years because it
could disqualify those in management positions who may have been the
victims of downsizing and companies going out of business.
One commenter disagrees with the 6-year currency requirement for
the 3 years as PIC (under proposed Sec. 119.67(a)) for a person
becoming a director of operations for the first time. This commenter
believes that PIC time is much more relevant to a director of
operations' administrative responsibilities and that the currency
requirement should apply to the chief pilot, whose function is much
more technical. This commenter also disagrees with proposed
Sec. 119.71(c)(1) and (d)(1) which exempts the chief pilot from being
qualified to serve as PIC in operations conducted under part 121. He
believes that since the chief pilot is directly responsible for the
proficiency of the pilots, he should be able to serve in this capacity.
Commuter Air Technologies says that 4 years in an aircraft type is
more important than 4 years in maintaining a large aircraft as
qualification for chief inspector. This commenter adds that small
certificate holders rely on senior maintenance personnel, such as,
director and chief inspector, for technical and administrative
leadership and that experience in aircraft type would better provide
this type of experience and skill as opposed to experience in
maintaining large aircraft. Similarly, one commenter objects to the use
of the phrase ``large aircraft'' when many commuter predecessors are
not ``large'' aircraft (by the definition of SFAR 41); this could
exclude qualifying excellent candidates from such management positions
as director of operations, chief pilot, and director of maintenance.
FAA Response: The FAA contends that most currently employed
directors meet the new standards. For those directors who do not,
Sec. 119.67(e) allows operators to request authorization from their
district office for the continued employment of those directors.
However, note that Secs. 119.67(e) and 119.71(f) provide for exceptions
from experience requirements, but not from requirements to hold
necessary certificates. The FAA anticipates that most operators whose
directors do not meet the new requirements will request authorization
and that those requests will be granted. The FAA agrees that in some
cases the proposed recency requirements would place an unnecessary
burden on those directors who may have extended periods of unemployment
prior to being hired. Thus, for the final rule, the FAA is changing
some of the recency requirements. The final rule also standardizes the
language as much as possible between operations and airworthiness
management positions. The final rule gives relief for those operators
who do not operate large aircraft.
The FAA will develop handbook guidance on management personnel to
provide FAA inspectors with criteria to respond to requests concerning
issues raised by commenters, such as the combining of certain positions
in the case of small operators. In analyzing such requests, the FAA
will consider the number of airplanes being operated, the number of
employees, the complexity of the operation, the ability of the operator
to perform required tasks, and the equivalent level of safety.
The final rule contains the following requirements:
Director of Safety
The major carriers have told FAA that they already have established
this position and are already fulfilling this function. For other
operations, Sec. 119.65(b) provides flexibility for establishing this
position.
Director of Operations
Section 119.67 requires 3 years of experience as PIC of a large
airplane operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter when the
certificate holder operates large airplanes. If the certificate holder
uses only small airplanes in its operation, the experience may be
obtained in either large or small
[[Page 65888]]
airplanes. For first time applicants, both Secs. 119.67 and 119.71
require that the 3 years PIC experience must have been obtained within
the past 6 years.
Chief Pilot
Section 119.67 requires 3 years of experience as PIC of a large
airplane operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter when the
certificate holder operates large airplanes. If the certificate holder
uses only small airplanes in its operation, the experience may be
obtained in either large or small airplanes. For first time applicants,
both Secs. 119.67 and 119.71 require that the 3 years PIC experience
must have been obtained within the past 6 years.
Director of Maintenance
Section 119.67 requires 3 years of experience within the last 6
years in maintaining or repairing aircraft. Section 119.71 requires 3
years of experience within any amount of time in maintaining or
repairing aircraft. The requirement in Sec. 119.67(c)(4)(i) that the
director of maintenance have experience in maintaining ``large
aircraft'' has been changed to ``aircraft with 10 or more passenger
seats'' to provide for maintenance experience acquired by work for an
affected commuter.
Chief Inspector
The requirement in Sec. 119.67(d)(2) and (d)(3) that the chief
inspector have experience in maintaining ``large aircraft'' has been
changed to ``aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats'' to provide for
maintenance experience acquired by work for an affected commuter.
Derivation and distribution tables. The purpose of the revisions to
part 121, Subparts A, B, C, and D, and part 135, Subpart A, is to
delete all sections which have been moved to part 119, such as
requirements using outdated terminology. Subparts B, C, and D, and
certain sections of Subpart A of part 121 are entirely deleted as well
as certain sections of subpart A of part 135 because these requirements
are either obsolete or have been moved to proposed part 119. SFAR 38-2
terminates 15 months after the date of publication of this final rule
and many of its provisions have been moved to part 119. Also part 127
is deleted as discussed above under ``Sec. 119.25- Rotorcraft
operations.'' Table 3 is a derivation table, showing the origin and
current source in SFAR 38-2, part 121, or part 135 of many of the new
sections in part 119. Table 4 is a distribution table, showing the
location in part 119 for each section removed from part 121, part 135,
and SFAR 38-2.
Table 3.--Derivation Table for Part 119
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New section Based on
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A:
119.1(a).................... New language.
119.1(b).................... SFAR 38-2, Section 1(a).
119.1(c).................... New language.
119.1(d).................... New language.
119.1(e).................... New language.
119.2....................... New language.
119.3....................... SFAR 38-2, Section 6 and new language.
119.5(a).................... SFAR 38-2, Section 2(a).
119.5(b).................... SFAR 38-2, Section 2(b).
119.5(c).................... New language.
119.5(d).................... SFAR 38-2, Section 1(a)(3).
119.5(e).................... SFAR 38-2, Section 1(a)(3).
119.5(f).................... SFAR 38-2, Section 1(b).
119.5(g).................... SFAR 38-2, Section 1(c), 121.4, 135.7.
119.5(h).................... SFAR 38-2, Flush paragraph following
Section 1(a)(3) and new language.
119.5(i).................... 121.27(a)(1), 121.51(a)(1),
135.13(a)(3).
119.5(j).................... 135.33.
119.7(a).................... SFAR 38-2, Section 3.
119.7(b).................... 121.23, 121.43.
119.9(a).................... 135.29.
119.9(b).................... New language.
Subpart B:
119.21(a)................... SFAR 38-2, Section 4(a), 121.3.
119.21(b)................... SFAR 38-2, Section 4(b).
119.21(c)................... New language.
119.23(a)................... SFAR 38-2, Section 5(a).
119.23(b)................... SFAR 38-2, Section 5(b).
119.25(a)................... SFAR 38-2, Section 4(c), 5(c), and (d)
and new language.
119.25(b)................... SFAR 38-2, Section 4(c), 5(c), and (d)
and new language.
Subpart C:
119.31...................... SFAR 38-2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b),
121.3, and 135.5.
119.33(a)................... SFAR 38-2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b),
3, 121.3, 135.5, 135.13(a).
119.33(b)................... SFAR 38-2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b),
3, 121.3, 135.5, 135.13(a).
119.33(c)................... SFAR 38-2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b),
3, 121.3, 135.5, 135.13(a).
119.35(a)................... 121.26, 121.47(a), 135.11(a).
119.35(b)................... 121.26, 121.47(a), 135.11(a).
119.35(c)................... 121.47(a).
119.35(d)................... 121.47(b).
119.35(e)................... 121.47(c).
119.35(f)................... 121.47(d).
119.35(g)................... 121.48.
119.35(h)................... 121.49.
119.37(a)................... 121.25(a), 121.45(a), 135.11(b)(1) and
new language.
119.37(b)................... 121.25(a), 121.45(a), 135.11(b)(1) and
new language.
119.37(c)................... 121.25(a), 121.45(a), 135.11(b)(1) and
new language.
[[Page 65889]]
119.37(d)................... 121.25(a), 121.45(a), 135.11(b)(1) and
new language.
119.37(e)................... 121.25(a), 121.45(a), 135.11(b)(1) and
new language.
119.39(a)................... 121.27(a)(2), 121.51(a)(3),
135.11(b)(1).
119.39(b)................... 121.27(a)(2), 121.51, 135.13(a)(2) and
(b).
119.41(a)................... 121.77(a), 135.15(a).
119.41(b)................... New language.
119.41(c)................... 121.77(b), 135.15(b).
119.41(d)................... 121.77(c), 135.15(d).
119.43(a)................... 121.75(b), 135.63(a)(2).
119.43(b)................... 121.75(b), 135.63(a)(2).
119.47(a)................... 135.27(a).
119.47(b)................... 121.83, 135.27(b).
119.49(a)................... 121.5, 121.25(b), 121.45(b), 135.11(b),
and new language.
119.49(b)................... 121.45(b), 135.11(b)(1) and new
language.
119.49(c)................... 135.11(b)(1) and new language.
119.49(d)................... 121.75, 135.81.
119.51(a)................... 121.79(a), 135.17(a).
119.51(b)................... 121.79(b), 135.17(d).
119.51(c)................... 121.79(c), 135.17(b), and new language.
119.51(d)................... 121.79(d), 135.17(c) and (d).
119.51(e)................... 121.79(b), 135.17(c) and (d).
119.53(a)................... 121.6(a).
119.53(b)................... New language.
119.53(c)................... 121.6(b).
119.53(d)................... 121.5(c).
119.53(e)................... New language.
119.53(f)................... New language.
119.55(a)................... 121.57(a) and (b).
119.55(b)................... 121.57(a) and (b).
119.55(c)................... 121.57(a) and (b).
119.55(d)................... 121.57(a) and (b).
119.55(e)................... 121.57(a) and (b).
119.57(a)................... 121.57(c).
119.57(b)................... New language.
119.58(a)................... 135.19(b).
119.58(b)................... 135.19(a).
119.58(c)................... 135.19(c).
119.59(a)................... 121.81(a), 135.73, and new language.
119.59(b)................... 121.73, 121.81(a), 135.63(a), 135.73,
and new language.
119.59(c)................... 121.81(a).
119.59(d)................... New language.
119.59(e)................... New language.
119.59(f)................... New language.
119.61(a)................... 121.29(a), 121.53(a), (c), and (d),
135.9(a).
119.61(b)................... 121.29(a), 121.53(c), and new language.
119.61(c)................... 135.35.
119.63(a)................... New language.
119.63(b)................... New language.
119.65(a)................... 121.59(a).
119.65(b)................... 121.59(b).
119.65(c)................... 121.59(b).
119.65(d)................... 121.61 and new language.
119.65(e)................... 121.59(c).
119.67(a)................... 121.61(a) and new language.
119.67(b)................... 121.61(b) and new language.
119.67(c)................... 121.61(c), 135.39(c) and new language.
119.67(d)................... 121.61(d) and new language.
119.67(e)................... 121.61(b), 135.39(d).
119.69(a)................... 135.37(a).
119.69(b)................... 121.59(b), 135.37(b).
119.69(c)................... 121.59(b).
119.69(d)................... 135.39 and new language.
119.69(e)................... 121.59, 135.37(c).
119.71(a)................... 135.39(a)(1) and new language.
119.71(b)................... 135.39(a)(2) and new language.
119.71(c)................... 135.39(b)(1) and new language.
119.71(d)................... 135.39(b)(2) and new language.
119.71(e)................... 135.39(c) and new language.
119.71(f)................... 135.39(d) and new language.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65890]]
Table 4.--Distribution Table for Part 121, Part 135, and SFAR 38-2
Sections Being Replaced by Part 119
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replaced by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 121:
121.3....................... 119.21(a); 119.31; 119.33.
121.4....................... 119.5(g).
121.5....................... 119.49(a).
121.6(a).................... 119.53(a).
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
121.6(b).................... 119.53(c).
121.7....................... 119.21.
121.9....................... deleted.
121.13...................... 119.25.
121.21...................... 119.1.
121.23...................... 119.7(b).
121.25(a)................... 119.37(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and
(g).
121.25(b)................... 119.49(a).
121.26...................... 119.35 (a) and (b).
121.27(a)(1)................ 119.5(i).
121.27(a)(2)................ 119.39 (a) and (b).
121.29(a)................... 119.61 (a) and (b).
121.41...................... 119.1.
121.43...................... 119.7(b).
121.45(a)................... 119.37(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and
(g).
121.45(b)................... 119.49 (a) and (b).
121.47(a)................... 119.35(a), (b), and (c).
121.47(b)................... 119.35(d).
121.47(c)................... 119.35(e).
121.47(d)................... 119.35(f).
121.48...................... 119.35(g).
121.49...................... 119.35(h).
121.51...................... 119.39(b).
121.51(a)(1)................ 119.5(i).
121.51(a)(3)................ 119.39(a).
121.53(a)................... 119.61(a).
121.53(c)................... 119.61 (a) and (b).
121.53(d)................... 119.61(a).
121.55...................... deleted.
121.57(a)................... 119.55(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).
121.57(b)................... 119.55(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).
121.57(c)................... 119.57(a).
121.59...................... 119.69(e).
121.59(a)................... 119.65(a).
121.59(b)................... 119.65 (b) and (c); 119.69 (b) and (c).
121.59(c)................... 119.65(e).
121.61...................... 119.65(d).
121.61(a)................... 119.67(a).
121.61(b)................... 119.67 (b) and (e).
121.61(c)................... 119.67(c).
121.61(d)................... 119.67(d).
121.71...................... 119.1.
121.73...................... 119.59(b).
121.75...................... 119.49(d).
121.75(b)................... 119.43 (a) and (b).
121.77(a)................... 119.41(a).
121.77(b)................... 119.41(c).
121.77(c)................... 119.41(d).
121.79(a)................... 119.51(a).
121.79(b)................... 119.51 (b) and (e).
121.79(c)................... 119.51(c).
121.79(d)................... 119.51(d).
121.81(a)................... 119.59(a), (b), and (c).
121.83...................... 119.47(b).
Part 135:
135.5....................... 119.31; 119.33(a), (b), and (c).
135.7....................... 119.5(g).
135.9(a).................... 119.61(a).
135.11(a)................... 119.35 (a) and (b).
135.11(b)................... 119.49(a).
135.11(b)(1)................ 119.37(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and
(g); 119.39(a); 119.49 (b) and (c).
135.13(a)................... 119.33(a), (b), and (c).
135.13(a)(2)................ 119.39(b).
135.13(a)(3)................ 119.5(i).
135.13(b)................... 119.39(b).
135.15(a)................... 119.41(a).
135.15(b)................... 119.41(b).
[[Page 65891]]
135.15(d)................... 119.41(d).
135.17(a)................... 119.51(a).
135.17(b)................... 119.51(c).
135.17(c)................... 119.51 (d) and (e).
135.17(d)................... 119.51(b), (d), and (e).
135.19...................... 119.58.
135.27(a)................... 119.47(a).
135.27(b)................... 119.47(b).
135.29...................... 119.9(a).
135.31...................... 119.5.
135.33...................... 119.5(j).
135.35...................... 119.61(c).
135.37(a)................... 119.69(a).
135.37(b)................... 119.69(b).
135.37(c)................... 119.69(e).
135.39...................... 119.69(d).
135.39(a)(1)................ 119.71(a).
135.39(a)(2)................ 119.71(b).
135.39(b)(1)................ 119.71(c).
135.39(b)(2)................ 119.71(d).
135.39(c)................... 119.67(c); 199.71(e).
135.39(d)................... 119.67(e); 119.71(f).
135.63(a)................... 119.59(b).
135.63(a)(2)................ 119.43 (a) and (b).
135.73...................... 119.59 (a) and (b).
135.81...................... 119.49(d).
SFAR 38-2:
Section 1(a)................ 119.1(b).
Section 1(a)(3)............. 119.5 (d) and (e); 119.5(h).
Section 1(b)................ 119.5(f).
Section 1(c)................ 119.5(g); 119.31; 119.33 (a), (b), and
(c).
Section 2(a)................ 119.5(a); 119.31; 119.33 (a), (b), and
(c).
Section 2(b)................ 119.5(b); 119.31; 119.33 (a), (b), and
(c).
Section 2(c)................ 129.1.
Section 3................... 119.7(a); 119.33 (a), (b), and (c).
Section 4(a)................ 119.21(a).
Section 4(b)................ 119.21(b).
Section 4(c)................ 119.25 (a) and (b).
Section 4(d)................ 119.25 (a) and (b).
Section 5(a)................ 119.23(a).
Section 5(b)................ 119.23(b).
Section 5(c)................ 119.25 (a) and (b).
Section 5(d)................ 119.25 (a) and (b).
Section 6................... 119.3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Discussion of Comments Related to Costs and Benefits
This section of the preamble discusses those costs and benefits
related comments submitted to the docket for the NPRM. The comments are
presented by topic within their respective areas of concern.
1. Operations
Flight Time Limitations. A commuter operator from Alaska voiced its
concerns about the potential high cost ($502,000) of compliance
associated with the proposed requirement for flight time limitations.
According to this operator, compliance with the proposed rule would
require hiring an estimated 15 to 75 percent more pilots, depending on
the location of its operations in Alaska. Also, there would also be
additional costs incurred for training.
FAA Response: The FAA is holding in abeyance a decision concerning
flight time limitations because of a new proposal that, if adopted,
would overhaul all of the flight and duty rules.
Dispatchers. There were a number of comments submitted on the
establishment of a dispatcher system. However, none of the comments
were directly related to costs. Among those comments related to costs,
the primary concern pertained to the idea that there would be
significant costs incurred by operators in remote areas (i.e., most of
Alaska) or those operators with a small number of airplanes (fewer than
five).
FAA Response: There are four points to make in reference to the
comments. First, the commenters failed to provide any specific cost
information to substantiate their claims of incurring significantly
high compliance costs for establishing a dispatch system. Second, it is
the FAA's position that nearly all part 135 commuters already have the
basic communication equipment needed for a dispatch system because they
already have flight locators and flight followers conducting some
degree of operational control. Third, even in remote areas carriers
have access to contracted communications systems. Fourth, in regard to
the personnel costs associated with the dispatch system, these
operators are expected to upgrade most of their existing flight
locators and flight followers to be dispatchers, at an hourly wage
increase of $1.60 (or $4,193 annually). Some dispatchers will be hired
outside of the company at an
[[Page 65892]]
annual wage of $24,000. This position is based on information obtained
from the Aircraft Dispatchers Federation (ADF) and a survey of several
part 135 operators with dual operations specifications (parts 121 and
135). The FAA estimates a cost of $13,000 as the average minimum annual
operating cost of establishing a dispatch system (assuming nothing is
in place by a particular operator). This includes costs for telephone
service, office space, office furniture, access to a current weather
service, and access to air-ground communications.
Pilot Qualifications. Several commenters are opposed to the
proposed requirements for pilot qualifications on the basis of an
anticipated high cost of compliance.
FAA Response: The final rule does not contain requirements for
crewmember training and pilot qualifications. These requirements are
contained in a separate rulemaking action that pertains to operators
under parts 121 and 135.
Cockpit Protective Breathing Equipment (PBE). One airplane
manufacturer questions the need for fire-fighting PBE on the flight
deck of commuter airplanes with 10 to 19 passenger seats. The commenter
asserts that it would cost an additional $23,800 dollars (rather than
the FAA's cost estimate of $400 per PBE unit) to equip each one of its
10-to-19-seat airplanes with such PBE on the flight deck. This cost
estimate does not include a one-time $52,000 for development costs.
According to the commenter, its airplanes are already equipped with
fixed smoke-and-flame protection PBE at each of the two pilot stations.
Thus, the only potential cost would be for a fire-fighting PBE on the
flight deck.
FAA Response: The FAA has decided to drop the proposed requirement
for fire-fighting PBE on the flight deck of affected airplanes with 10
to 19 seats.
Costs of Compliance--All Items. According to one commenter, the
FAA's analysis grossly underestimated costs. The cost of the proposed
rule should be $1.6 billion instead of the FAA's estimate of $275
million.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the commenter. The FAA
contacted the commenter to acquire information on the methodology and
basic assumptions or rationale used to derive the cost estimate. With
regards to the methodology, the commenter indicated that he used his
own judgment and information provided by other commenters. None of his
analysis was supported empirically by outside sources or seemed to be
more credible than that used by the FAA. As to the basic assumptions,
the commenter said there was no documentation that detailed the
methodology used to derive his cost estimate of $1.6 billion.
Therefore, since the commenter was unable to substantiate the cost
estimate, the FAA will retain its cost estimate and all associated
methodology.
2. Cabin Safety
First Aid and Medical Kits. Several commenters provided cost
estimates ranging from $1,500 to $2,000 per airplane for the first aid
and medical kit requirement, but these cost estimates were submitted
without any detailed documentation. An additional commenter, who was
contacted, agrees with the cost per first aid kit, but argues that the
turnover rate should be 100% a year due to pilfering.
FAA Response: The cost estimates provided by the commenters are
higher than the FAA's original estimates. The FAA based the equipment
costs on off-the-shelf prices that would be available to all operators.
The FAA contacted one commenter that estimates the cost of $1,500 per
airplane for a first aid kit. The commenter's cost estimate includes up
front costs such as the engineering designs, administrative paperwork,
cost of tooling, as well as the cost of equipment and materials. The
FAA assumes that the first aid kits, as well as medical kits, can be
secured with Velcro tape and would be secure enough to meet the 18-G
requirement. As to design and administrative costs involved with
securing first aid and medical kits, the FAA is using the up-front
costs of $1,500 submitted by the commenters. With regards to pilferage,
none of the large airlines complain about first aid kits being stolen,
and the FAA believes that if any kits are stolen, air carriers would
take positive steps to stop such activity.
Locking Cockpit Door and Key. Several commenters are concerned that
some locking cockpit doors would have to be retrofitted to work with a
key, but cost estimates are not provided.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that the commenters correctly
state that keyless locks on affected lockable cockpit doors would have
to be retrofitted to work with keys. Based on information from FAA
technical personnel, the FAA is assuming that all of the 20-to-30-seat
airplanes would have their locks or doors retrofitted, at a total cost
of $182 per retrofit ($100 equipment + $82 labor).
Flotation Cushions and Life Vests. One commenter opposes the
requirement because of the equipment cost and weight penalty. This
commenter states that the seat cushions in the METRO airplane would not
serve as effective flotation devices. In addition, this commenter
provides a cost estimate for acquiring and retrofitting individual
flotation devices for METRO airplanes.
FAA Response: The FAA concurs that if the seat cushions in a
particular airplane model do not serve as flotation devices, then
individual flotation devices would have to be acquired. Also, the FAA
verified the commenter's cost estimate and has incorporated it into the
regulatory evaluation for the final rule.
Halon Fire Extinguishers. One commenter from Alaska provides an
aggregate cost estimate for the required halon fire extinguishers which
was substantially higher than the estimate in the NPRM. The commenter
does not provide additional commentary on the requirement beyond the
costs.
FAA Response: The FAA partially disagrees with this commenter. A
one-time cost estimate to account for up-front administrative and
engineering costs to comply with Type Data Certificates was submitted
by the commenter. The FAA verified this cost-estimate and has
incorporated it into the cost of the final rule. However, the FAA
contends that there would be no major retrofit costs because the halon
fire extinguishers would replace existing fire extinguishers with the
same size canister. The FAA's equipment costs were based on off-the-
shelf prices for halon which would be available to all operators.
Carry-on Baggage. A commenter from Alaska believes that the FAA's
cost estimate for the carry-on baggage screening program implementation
is too low. This commenter reasons that the wage rates and paperwork
burden would be higher for the Alaska air carriers. In addition, the
commenter strongly objects to applying the scanning program at
locations that do not have terminal facilities. This commenter believes
that each operator will need to develop a measurement device to check
each item of carry-on baggage which will result in delays. All of this
will cost $156,000 per year for each Alaskan commuter air carrier;
there is no detailed explanation of what this entails. Another
commenter, who was contacted, believes that for crewmembers to enforce
the carry-on baggage program will delay each flight one minute; this
flight delay will need to be costed out.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with these commenters. The FAA is
unable to evaluate the Alaska commenter's cost estimate without a
[[Page 65893]]
detailed explanation of the cost breakdown. However, it is important to
note that the wage rate and the paperwork hours assumed in the NPRM
were national averages, so these numbers could be higher in some parts
of the country, like Alaska, and lower in others. In addition, no
carrier would be required to have a measuring device to carry out this
program; the baggage screening program is visual in nature, and the
requirements and costs involved only refer to preparing baggage
screening procedures for the carrier's operations manual and an
addendum to the Operations Specifications. Finally, the FAA does not
believe that there would be delays on any flights due to such a program
as crewmembers would be ``eye balling'' carry-on baggage as passengers
are boarding at the same speed they have always boarded.
Flight Attendants at the Gate. A commenter believes that all
operators would only use trained, authorized, substitute personnel when
coverage is needed. This commenter believes that these trained persons
would all be new hires and paid annual salaries of $12,000. One
commenter from Alaska opposes the requirement for flight attendants at
the gate. The commenter states that both crewmembers on the 10-to-19
seat airplanes would need to assist in the loading and unloading
process, and hence neither could stay on board with passengers.
Furthermore, the commenter states that deplaning passengers would not
be a viable option because airports in Alaska do not have the proper
facilities. Therefore, the commenter states that a trained substitute
would have to stay on board the airplane with the passengers 100% of
the time. The commenter states that the FAA has also underestimated the
training costs and wage costs so that this requirement would cost about
$2.9 million each year for all of the Alaska commuter air carriers to
comply.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with these commenters. The
authorized personnel would need to be trained, reliable, and have a low
turnover rate; an annual salary of $12,000 would not be high enough to
attract such people. These airplanes typically fly only during the
summer months so passengers can be deplaned. The FAA contends that one
of the crewmembers can stay on board the airplane some of the time;
loading and unloading responsibilities can often times be accomplished
with one crewmember. The final rule has been changed to allow a
crewmember to stay on or in close proximity to the airplane to comply
with this requirement. The FAA does not believe it is likely that air
carriers in Alaska would have trained substitute personnel waiting at
each intermediate stop. Accordingly, the FAA believes that Alaskan air
carriers would either deplane passengers or use a crewmember.
Passenger Information. One commenter from Alaska disagrees with the
FAA's cost estimate for passenger information cards and believes that
it is too low. Alaskan air carriers would need to devise a more
comprehensive information system due to the many nationalities and
native languages in Alaska and this would entail great expense. Some
air carriers would also have to translate into Japanese, Korean, and
Russian for tourists from the Pacific Rim nations. The commenter also
thought that the FAA's assumption of a three year life expectancy for
information cards was too high. Based on experience, the commenter
states that information cards last less than a year due to wear and
theft. The commenter also estimates costs of $26,000 for Alaskan
commuter air carriers in the first year and $4,224 each year
thereafter.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with this commenter and believes
that the commenter misunderstood the requirements of this proposed
section. There is no current or proposed requirement to translate any
passenger information cards into any other language. In addition, the
industry average for passenger information cards is three years, so the
FAA will use the NPRM costs.
3. Certification
Performance Criteria. Of seven comments received, only one
manufacturer provided cost information. This manufacturer reports that,
for their part 23 commuter category certificated airplanes, there would
be no compliance costs. However, for their SFAR 41C certificated
airplanes, developing the data needed to comply with the part 121
requirements for obstacle clearance and for accelerate-stop would be
$3,000 per airplane for obstacle clearance and $2,500 per airplane for
accelerate stop. For their pre-SFAR 41C airplanes, it would be $63,000
per airplane to develop performance data for obstacle clearance and
$145,000 per airplane to develop anti-skid data, to purchase and
install anti-skid systems, and to incur the 35 lb. weight penalty for
accelerate-stop.
FAA Response: In the Notice, the FAA stated that all part 135
scheduled airplanes would be able to meet these performance criteria
and that the only cost would be a $5,000 per type certificate to
provide the data and obtain FAA approval for inclusion into the
airplane flight manual. After additional review, however, the FAA
realizes that SFAR 41 and predecessor category airplanes will be unable
to meet all of the part 121 performance criteria without having to
offload so many passengers or cargo as to become unprofitable to
operate in scheduled passenger service. If operators substitute
airplanes configured with 9 or fewer passenger seats for these
airplanes, there could be a substantial economic loss and potential
safety reduction. Thus, the FAA will allow the operators of these
airplanes to have 15 years to meet the part 121 performance
requirements. This will allow operators sufficient time to plan for the
replacement of these airplanes without incurring an enormous economic
loss. It also will allow manufacturers time to develop better
substitutes for these airplanes.
Engine-Out-En-Route-Net-Flight Data. There were three commenters on
this issue. One manufacturer commenter reports a one-time cost of
$24,774 to create the required one-engine-inoperative-en-route-net-
flight-path data which do not exist for any 10-to-19-seat airplanes.
Another commenter reports that these flight data are not included in
the FAA approved airplane flight manual.
FAA Response: The FAA concurs with these commenters and has adopted
the commenter's cost estimate.
Cargo Compartment Smoke Detector and Fire Extinguishing Systems and
Cargo Compartment Liners. Two commenters report a per-airplane cost of
$15,230 to $15,580 to install smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in
the cargo compartments of newly-manufactured 10-to-19-seat airplanes.
The commenter also reports a per-airplane-retrofitting cost of $17,420;
a one-time cost of $85,400 for engineering, designing, testing, and
paperwork for FAA approval; and 32 lbs. of added weight to each
airplane. The commenter also reports a per-airplane cost for cargo and
baggage compartment liners of $13,000 for a retrofit; $10,420 for a
newly-manufactured airplane; a $463,950 cost for a one-time
engineering, designing, testing, and paperwork to obtain FAA approval
cost; and 9 lbs. of additional weight. Another commenter reports a per
airplane cost of $26,400 and a weight of 15 lbs. This commenter also
notes that the NPRM did not propose any retrofitting.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the commenter. The FAA
proposal would only apply to newly-manufactured airplanes beginning
four years after the effective date. Thus, there
[[Page 65894]]
would be no retrofit costs. (After additional analysis, the FAA has
decided that this topic needs to be specifically addressed in a
separate rulemaking. Thus, there would be no compliance costs for this
in the commuter rule.)
Landing Gear Aural Warning. Two manufacturers and one operator
report that all of their 10-to-19-seat airplanes have aural landing
gear warnings. Two of these commenters report no compliance cost. The
other commenter reports a one-time manufacturer's cost of $2,620 to
obtain FAA approval of the flight-manual changes.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the commenter who reported a
one-time cost because the presence of the aural warning device in
existing airplanes means that this equipment was already included and
approved in the airplane flight manual. As the FAA believes that all
affected airplanes already employ an aural warning system, there are no
compliance costs.
Ditching Approval. There were five commenters who addressed this
issue. One commenter reports a $7,430 cost for its DeHavilland Twin
Otters to comply with this provision. Another commenter reports that it
would be impossible for the Twin Otter to comply with the ditching
requirement due to its fixed landing gear; also the commenter says that
other airplane operators would incur a $180 per airplane paperwork cost
to demonstrate compliance. Another commenter reports that the costs
would be extremely high. Two commenters report that there would be a
$1,500 one-time paperwork cost to demonstrate compliance to the FAA for
revision of the approved flight manual.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters. For the final
rule, the compliance period will be extended to 15 years. Thus, the
potential cost of compliance will be minimal.
Take-Off Warning System. One manufacturer reports that the per
airplane cost to install take-off warning devices would be $24,920 on a
newly-manufactured airplane; $26,500 for a retrofit; and $150,260 for a
one-time engineering, development, testing, and FAA-approval cost.
Also, these devices would weigh 5 lbs. Another commenter reports that
it would cost $12,600 per airplane to install a 2 lb. take-off warning
device on a newly manufactured airplane. One commenter reports that it
would cost $11,350 per airplane to install a take-off warning device on
a newly manufactured airplane.
FAA Response: The FAA estimates that the per airplane cost for a
newly manufactured airplane would be $16,000 for engineering,
developing, testing, and installing, plus an annual $1,600 inspection,
maintenance, and repair cost. The FAA also did not estimate any
additional weight for this device. However, after further technical
review, the FAA concludes that none of these airplane models (except
the Beech 99) would need a takeoff warning system because a takeoff
with a device in the most adverse position does not create a hazardous
condition. For the Beech 99, that problem was resolved when the FAA
issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) requiring these airplanes to
install a takeoff warning system. Thus, there are no compliance costs
associated with this requirement.
Third-Attitude Indicator. Two commenters report that there would be
no compliance cost for newly-manufactured airplanes because third
attitude indicators are standard equipment. One of these commenters
reports that there would be a $1,500 one-time manufacturer's paperwork
cost to obtain FAA approval to changes in the flight manual. The same
commenter reports that it would cost $10,865 to retrofit an airplane.
The other commenter reports that the per-airplane-retrofit cost would
be between $40,600 for a Beech 1900C and $48,800 for a Beech 99, and
that a third-attitude indicator would weigh 15 lbs. An airplane
operator reports that it would cost $40,000 per airplane to retrofit
its Beech 1900Cs. Another airplane operator reports that it would cost
$17,000 per airplane to retrofit its DeHavilland Twin Otters. Finally,
a commenter reports that it would cost $53,170 per airplane to retrofit
airplanes. In addition to the reported costs, the commenter states that
there was insufficient time for operators to retrofit these airplanes
within the one-year period proposed by the NPRM.
FAA Response: The FAA estimates that the per airplane cost would be
$16,000 for a retrofit and $8,000 for a newly-manufactured airplane.
The annual maintenance, inspection, and repair costs would be 10
percent of the retrofitting costs. The third-attitude indicator and
wiring would weigh 5 lbs. Based on the manufacturer information, this
device has been installed on all turbo-jet and commuter category
airplanes.
The FAA contends that its cost estimates in the NPRM are valid.
However, the FAA accepts the comment that the additional weight would
be 15 lbs. After additional analysis, and in light of the potential
high-costs of this proposal, the FAA believes that this requirement
should be handled consistently with the principle espoused in the
performance requirements. On that basis, the final rule will have a 15-
year retrofit compliance period for affected 10-19 seat airplanes and
predecessor category.
Lavatory Fire Protection. Concerning 10-to-19 seat airplanes, two
manufacturer commenters state that very few of their airplanes had
lavatories. For those few that do, one manufacturer reports that
installing a lavatory smoke detector and a built-in automatic fire
extinguisher in each lavatory-waste receptacle would cost $59,200 per
retrofit, $8,800 for a newly manufactured airplane, and would weigh 10
lbs. The other commenter reports it would cost $8,350 for a retrofit,
$7,800 for a newly-manufactured airplane, involve a one-time
engineering cost of $49,000, and would increase each airplane's weight
by 16 lbs. Another commenter reports that a retrofit would cost $725.
Concerning 20-to-30-seat airplanes, two manufacturer commenters
report that it would cost $4,000 to retrofit their airplane lavatories.
One of these commenters also states that only one half of the newly
manufactured airplanes with lavatories have these devices. Two airlines
and one association report that it would cost $2,500 to retrofit their
airplane lavatories. One of the airlines reports that these devices
would weigh 20 lbs.
FAA Response: Section 121.308(a) requires each lavatory to have a
smoke detector system connected to either: (1) A warning light in the
flight deck; or (2) a warning light or an aural warning in the
passenger cabin that can be readily detected by a flight attendant.
Section 121.308(b) requires each lavatory to have a built-in automatic
fire extinguisher in each waste-disposal receptacle in the lavatory.
These requirements are also found in section 25.854 but only for
airplanes type certificated after 1991. There are no similar provisions
in part 135 or part 23.
In reviewing these comments for the 20-to-30-seat airplanes, the
FAA believes, although these commenters did not document the sources
for their estimates, that these estimates appear to be based on the
cost of a flight deck warning light system, which would involve some
airplane rewiring. However, the FAA's estimate is based on the operator
electing the second option allowed in the proposed rule--an aural
warning device that could be heard by the flight attendant. That option
is clearly the cost-effective option for 20-to-30-seat airplanes that
are required to have a flight attendant.
These provisions are largely unimportant for the 10-to-19-seat
[[Page 65895]]
airplanes because very few have a lavatory. In fact, one manufacturer
reported that none of their airplanes operating in the U.S. has one.
The FAA believes that the reported costs for these individual airplanes
are so large because any costs to engineer, design, and test would be
distributed over so few airplanes. However, for those few 10-to-19-seat
airplanes that do have a lavatory, the FAA changed this rule to allow
an aural warning system that can be heard by the flight crew. On that
basis, the FAA determined that it would cost about $175 to retrofit or
to install in a newly manufactured airplane a 5 lb. aural smoke
detector that requires $50 a year in maintenance and inspection and $15
a year for replacement batteries. The FAA also determined that it would
cost $300 to retrofit a 5 lb. receptacle automatic fire extinguisher
that requires $75 a year in maintenance and inspection and $50 a year
for recharging. These costs are $50 a year more than the costs
estimated in the NPRM.
The FAA also estimates that half of the 272 existing 20-to-30 seat
airplanes certificated before 1991 did not have these devices whereas
90 percent of the newly-manufactured airplanes have them. The FAA
accepts the commenter's statement that only half of these newly-
manufactured airplanes have these devices.
Emergency Exit Marking. One manufacturer reports that installing an
emergency exit marking light would cost $11,050 for a retrofit, $9,100
for a newly manufactured airplane, and would involve a one-time
manufacturing cost of $87,280 to engineer, design, test, and obtain FAA
approval for this device.
FAA Response: The cost of this provision was a part of the FAA's
estimated emergency lighting cost. After additional analysis, the FAA
believes that given the passenger's close proximity to emergency exits
and the high cost of complying with the lighting requirements, affected
airplanes will not be required to comply with certain lighting
provisions in 121.310.
Floor Proximity Lighting. One manufacturer commenter reports that
installing emergency floor proximity lighting would cost between
$27,600 and $36,000 for a retrofit, $20,800 for a newly manufactured
airplane, and the installed lighting would weigh 12 lbs. A second
manufacturer commenter reports that it would cost $19,000 for a
retrofit; $15,000 for a newly manufactured airplane; there would be a
one-time engineering, developing, testing, and obtaining FAA approval
cost of $52,650, and the installed lighting would weigh 10 lbs. This
commenter also proposes an alternative interior lighting of the exit
and exterior emergency exit lighting as a substitute for the full-scale
floor proximity and exterior emergency exit lighting in the NPRM. This
alternative lighting system is required for their airplanes in Great
Britain. But this commenter did not report the cost of their proposed
alternative. A third manufacturer commenter reports that it would cost
$8,000 for a retrofit. One air carrier commenter reports that it would
cost about $17,700 to retrofit its DeHavilland Twin Otters. Another air
carrier commenter reports that it would cost $26,800 to retrofit its
Beech 1900Cs and $22,800 to retrofit its Jetstream 31s and Beech
1900Ds. One association reports that it would cost between $20,000 and
$50,000 for a retrofit. A second association reports it would cost
$11,000 for a retrofit. A third association reports it would cost
$19,000 for a retrofit. Finally, an aviation consultant group reports
it would cost $8,000 for a retrofit.
FAA Response: The FAA estimates that the cost to comply with the
emergency lighting requirements in 121.310 would be $2,500 to retrofit
existing airplanes and $2,000 to install in newly-manufactured
airplanes. After additional analysis, the FAA agrees with these
commenters that the earlier FAA costs severely underestimated the
retrofitting and new installation costs. As a result, the FAA
determines that 10-to-19-seat airplanes would not be required to meet
these lighting requirements in 121.310.
Emergency Exit Exterior Lighting. One manufacturer commenter
reports that the per airplane cost would be $13,400 to install a 15 lb.
emergency exit exterior lighting system on a newly manufactured
airplane and $17,950 for a retrofit. In addition, they report a one-
time engineering, design, testing, and paperwork for FAA approval cost
of $64,525. However, as noted in the previous section, their suggested
alternative to floor proximity lighting would also contain an exterior
emergency lighting capability. Another manufacturer commenter reports
that the per airplane cost would be $11,800 to install a 12 lb.
emergency exit exterior lighting system on a newly manufactured
airplane and $17,250 to $23,550 for a retrofit. One air carrier reports
that it would cost $9,400 per airplane to retrofit its DeHavilland Twin
Otters. Another air carrier reports that it would cost $16,640 to
retrofit its Beech 1990Cs, 1900Ds, and its Jetstream 31s.
FAA Response: The FAA provided one aggregated cost estimate for the
emergency lighting system. However, as that total cost estimate for all
lighting required by Section 121.310 was $2,500, the FAA reevaluated
its exterior-lighting-cost estimate. After additional analysis, the FAA
agrees with these commenters that the earlier FAA costs severely
underestimated the retrofitting and new installation costs. As a
result, the FAA determines that 10-to-19-seat airplanes would not be
required to meet these lighting requirements in 121.310.
Exterior Emergency Exit Marking. One manufacturer commenter reports
that it would cost between $350 and $650 for an airplane operator to
install these markings on the exterior of the emergency exits. One
association commenter reports that it would cost $74 to install these
markings. Neither commenter discusses the number of airplanes that
would need to have these markings installed.
FAA Response: The FAA estimated that about 10 percent of the 10-to-
19-seat airplanes would need to comply with this requirement at a cost
of $100 per airplane. However, the FAA notes that this section is
identical to Section 135.178(g). As a result, there are no compliance
costs.
Pilot Shoulder Harnesses. One manufacturer commenter reports that
even though all of their airplanes are now manufactured with the single
point pilot shoulder harness, they would still incur a $22,500 one-time
cost--presumably to obtain FAA approval for inclusion in the flight
manual. One association commenter reports that it would cost $440 to
retrofit a single point shoulder harness.
FAA Response: The FAA did not estimate any cost for this provision
because the proposal did not require retrofitting and the FAA was
informed by industry that the single point inertial harness for pilots
is standard equipment on all currently-manufactured airplanes. Thus,
the FAA determines that there is no compliance cost.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter who reported a one-time
manufacturer's cost because this equipment is already in airplanes and,
hence, approved in the airplane flight manual.
Interior Panel Heat and Smoke Release Standards. There were two
commenters on this issue. One manufacturer commenter reports that the
per airplane cost for requiring the more stringent fireproofing
material for cabin interiors would be $77,550 for a retrofit, $67,500
for a new installation, and there would be a one-time engineering,
designing, testing, retooling, and obtaining FAA approval cost of
$627,910. Another manufacturer commenter reports that it would cost
[[Page 65896]]
$90,000 per airplane to install in a newly manufactured airplane and
also notes that the Notice did not propose a retrofit. It should be
noted that the commenter's methodology averages any one-time
engineering and development costs into the expected number of future
sales of the Beech 1900D.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the commenters. Manufacturers
would only have to comply with the existing type-certification
standard. Therefore, there would be no compliance cost.
Passenger Seat Cushion Flammability. There were eight commenters on
this issue. One manufacturer commenter reports that the per airplane
cost would be $11,250 to retrofit one of its airplanes with fire-
blocked-seat cushions; $10,250 per airplane to install in a newly
manufactured airplane; there would be a one-time engineering, design,
testing, and FAA-approval costs of $85,415; and it would add 20 lbs. A
second manufacturer commenter reports that the per airplane cost would
be between $20,000 and $22,600 for a retrofit; $3,400 in newly
manufactured airplanes; and would weigh 38 lbs. One air carrier reports
that the per airplane cost would be $12,600 to retrofit its Beech
1900Cs and $4,000 to retrofit its Beech 1900Ds and Jetstream 31s.
Another air carrier reports that the per airplane cost would be $35,000
to retrofit its DeHavilland Twin Otters. Another air carrier reports
that the per airplane cost would be $20,000 to retrofit its fleet.
Three associations report that the per airplane retrofitting costs
would range from $20,000, $42,950, and $50,000.
FAA Response: The FAA estimated that the per-airplane-incremental
cost would be $20,000 to retrofit fire-blocked-seat cushions, $5,000 to
install these seat cushions on newly-manufactured airplanes, and
$10,000 to replace these seat cushions on airplanes that have fire-
blocked-seat cushions. An additional cost would be the 38 lbs. of
weight these seats add to the airplane. The FAA acknowledges the fact
that different airplanes would have different retrofitting and new
installation costs.
After additional analysis, the FAA accepts the manufacturer
commenters' cost estimates for their airplanes as well as accepts the
air carrier estimates provided for the DeHavilland Twin Otter and the
Jetstream 31. For the other types of airplanes that would need to be
retrofitted, the FAA uses an average of these reported retrofitting
costs weighted by the number of each type of this airplane still in
service. The FAA also accepts the commenters weight estimates for each
of their own airplanes. After additional analysis, the FAA finds that,
for the final rule, a 15-year compliance period is appropriate for 10-
to-19-seat airplanes.
``Fasten Seat Belt'' Lighted Sign. There were two commenters on
this issue. One manufacturer reports that installing a fasten seat belt
light would cost between $3,025 and $4,000 for a retrofit and $1,600
for a newly manufactured airplane. One association reports that it
would cost $11,000 per airplane.
FAA Response: The FAA had not estimated any compliance costs for
section 121.317(b) because it was believed that commuter airplanes had
these signs. However, after additional analysis, the FAA determines
that a placard and a pre-flight briefing provide an equivalent level of
safety to a lighted sign. As these are industry practices, there is no
compliance cost.
Wing Ice Light. There were two comments on this issue. One
manufacturer reports that there would be no compliance costs for any of
their airplanes. One association reports that it would cost $11,000 to
install wing ice lights on its members' airplanes.
FAA Response: In the Notice, the FAA did not estimate any costs for
this provision because the provision states ``No person may operate an
airplane in icing conditions at night unless means are provided for
illuminating or otherwise determining the formation of ice on the parts
of the wings that are critical from the standpoint of ice
accumulation.'' The FAA holds that all of the airplanes have either the
wing ice lights or an acceptable alternative method for determining the
icing accumulation on the wings. As a result, there is no compliance
cost.
Pitot Heat Indication. There were five commenters on this issue.
One manufacturer reports that the per-airplane cost would be $9,250 to
retrofit pitot heat indication tubes, $10,600 to install on a newly-
manufactured airplane, there would be a one-time cost to apply,
engineer, design, and test of $31,670; and it would weigh 4 lbs.
Another manufacturer commenter reports that it would cost between
$3,000 and $5,700 per airplane to retrofit its models no longer in
production and it would weigh 1 lb. This commenter also reports that
all of its currently manufactured airplanes have pitot heat indication
systems. One air carrier reports it would cost $1,650 to retrofit its
DeHavilland Twin Otters with pitot heat indication tubes. One
association reports that it would cost its members $11,000 per airplane
for a retrofit while another association reports that it would cost its
members between $1,500 and $25,000 per airplane for a retrofit.
FAA Response: Based on information contained in the Draft
Regulatory Evaluation to the FAR/JAR Harmonization, the FAA had
estimated that the per airplane costs would be $500 for a retrofit and
$250 for a newly-manufactured airplane. After review of these comments,
the FAA has revised these cost estimates to $4,000 for a retrofit,
$2,000 for installation on a newly manufactured airplane, and an
additional 5 lbs. of weight to the airplane.
Power Distribution System. One commenter reports that Section
121.313(c) requires a power supply and distribution system that meets
the requirements of six sections of Part 25. They state that this would
require a major redesign of their airplanes' electrical power
distribution system. They report a per airplane cost of $15,605 for a
retrofit, $12,660 for a newly manufactured airplane, and a one-time
engineering, design, testing, and paperwork for FAA approval of
$156,256.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with this commenter. They did not
notice that the further text in part 121.313(c) reads ``* * * or that
is able to produce and distribute the load for the required instruments
and equipment, * * *'' The requirement allows the use of a power supply
and distribution system that has been shown to perform its functions.
Thus, compliance can be established by means other than part 25. As a
result, there are no compliance costs.
Out-of-Service Time to Install Airplane Equipment. Four commenters
note that the FAA failed to include the cost for the additional out-of-
service time that will be needed to install all the equipment required
to comply with the proposal. Although no exact costs were provided,
these commenters assert that this time out of service would result in a
substantial revenue loss.
FAA Response: Even though the FAA attempted to design the proposed
rule to minimize out-of-service time, the agency agrees with these
commenters that there would be some out-of-service time for some of the
affected airplanes. However, as a result of the changes from the NPRM
to the final rule, the FAA contends that all of the required equipment
by the final rule can be installed during regularly scheduled
maintenance and there will be no additional out-of-service time.
4. Maintenance
The Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA), citing the uniqueness
of the
[[Page 65897]]
Alaskan operating environment and the absolute necessity of air travel
in Alaska, notes that most Alaskan operators utilize mixed fleets and
employ maintenance personnel who work on all airplanes in such mixed
fleets. The AACA maintains that requiring the scheduling of maintenance
personnel according to part 121 standards would place an additional
administrative burden and financial compliance cost on air carriers at
locations with limited personnel and mixed fleets. The AACA contends
that the part 121 specification of maintenance personnel duty time
limitations would require the air carrier either to develop and apply
separate work schedules for part 121 and part 135 mechanics or to hire
additional mechanics.
FAA Response: With few exceptions, the FAA agrees with the
commenters. Part 121 requires 24 hours off during any 7 consecutive
days; part 135 makes no such provision. In its original assessment of
maintenance and preventive maintenance personnel duty time limitations,
the FAA assumed the issue to be non-controversial; the existence of
union work rules, Department of Labor regulations and the generally
accepted notion of a ``day of rest'' were believed to be sufficient to
accomplish the same result. As a consequence, the FAA did not assess
any costs associated with the burden of scheduling and providing a day
of rest for part 135 mechanics as is required under part 121 where
operators must ensure adequate rest for their mechanics.
The FAA maintains that mechanics, similar to pilots and flight
attendants, must receive adequate rest in order to perform their duties
properly and that the minimum standard required under part 121 would
ensure that the opportunity for rest is provided. The FAA, however,
concurs with the AACA that the extending of duty time limitations to
the Alaskan operators of mixed fleets utilizing maintenance personnel
under both parts 121 and 135 would be an additional cost burden.
Therefore, based on cost information provided by the AACA, the FAA has
adjusted its original maintenance cost estimates accordingly. The
adjustment is two-fold: 1) the full cost burden inclusive of potential
added labor costs were estimated for Alaskan 10-19 seat category air
carriers; and 2) the administrative maintenance personnel scheduling
costs without the labor cost factor were estimated for the remainder of
the 10-to-19-seat non-Alaskan commuter fleet as well as the 20-to-30-
seat commuter fleet.
Maintenance Recordkeeping Requirements (Recording). The AACA also
criticizes the FAA's estimate of a one-time cost for compliance with
the commuter rule's maintenance provisions. The AACA maintains that the
one-time cost is underestimated and that there would be on-going
maintenance recordkeeping costs.
FAA Response: The FAA concurs and has adjusted its original
maintenance cost estimates accordingly. In this instance, however, the
FAA has apportioned the added required maintenance recordkeeping costs
between 10-to-19-seat and 20-to-30-seat airplanes for the total
domestic commuter industry.
Maintenance Recordkeeping Requirements (Records Transfer). One
commenter objects to the proposed change requiring engine and propeller
total time in service to be added to the list of required recorded
items. Typically, under part 121, only the total hours in service of an
airplane's airframe is transferred information on older airplanes
because operators have not been required to retain engine and propeller
time in service data. According to the commenter, this change would
necessitate operators of older 121 airplanes to undergo an extensive
search of maintenance records to determine the historical times on the
engine and propeller if such data is available at all.
FAA Response: The FAA concurs with the commenter. The adoption of
part 135 wording imposes the more comprehensive part 135 maintenance
recording requirements on part 121 operators and this might require an
extensive search of maintenance records with some additional cost to an
operator of older part 121 airplanes. The FAA, however, believes that
any additional cost as a result of such a search would be minimal and
has been taken into account with the cost adjustment provided under the
maintenance recordkeeping requirements for recording addressed in an
earlier comment. The FAA believes that the additional cost would be
minimal because only seven existing part 121 operators of older
propeller-driven airplanes would be affected by the new requirement.
Typically, most part 135 operators utilizing propeller-driven airplanes
already retain engine- and propeller-total-time-in-service data and
most part 121 operators utilize jet-driven airplanes.
Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP). One commenter
estimates that the cost associated with the CAMP was considerably
greater ($1.6 million) relative to the FAA's estimate to develop or
revise and upgrade the CAMP ($105,000) as a result of the commuter
rule.
FAA Response: The FAA does not concur with the commenter's
estimate. The FAA maintains that nearly all operators of airplanes with
10-to-19- or 20-to-30-seat configurations regardless of whether
operating under part 121 or part 135, are either conducting their
scheduled maintenance under an approved CAMP or have adopted a CAMP as
the basic guideline for their scheduled maintenance. As a consequence,
the FAA based its original estimates on the cost associated with the
minimum editorial changes to operators' CAMP's necessitated by the
commuter rule.
The FAA however, has adjusted its maintenance cost estimates for
recordkeeping requirements based on the comments already discussed and
detailed above. The FAA believes the costs described by the commenter
are costs associated with the new recordkeeping requirements, not
administrative costs associated with the modifications to existing
CAMP's.
5. Part 119
Single-Engine Airplanes. Several commenters state that the NPRM
cost estimates for not allowing a passenger to sit in the co-pilot seat
on a single-engine Otter are understated. One commenter states that the
data the FAA used was based on national averages while all of the
airplanes in question are located in Alaska. The commenters also state
that the load factors and operating costs in Alaska are much higher
than the rest of the country.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters and will not
prohibit qualified (as prescribed by Sec. 135.113) single-engine
airplanes, namely single-engine Otters, from carrying a revenue
passenger in the copilot seat.
Proving Tests. Several commenters suggest that for operators who
are switching from part 135 to part 121, the FAA should allow proving
tests on revenue flights. Other commenters contend that since the
airplanes they are using and the routes they are flying are not
changing, the FAA should not require a proving test. Still other
commenters state that the FAA's estimate of $437 hourly airplane
operating costs was too low. (This rate includes crew, maintenance, and
fuel costs.) The commenters' estimates range from $750 to $1,050 per
hour versus the FAA's average estimate of $483 per hour for 20-to-30-
seat airplanes and $463 per hour for 10-to-19-seat airplanes. Finally,
some part 135 operators commented
[[Page 65898]]
that they already meet many of the part 121 requirements and should not
have to have a proving test.
FAA Response: For most part 135 operators, the biggest affect the
NPRM would have on them would be the establishment of a dispatch
system. Thus, for some operators, the FAA could devise tests that would
entail only limited in-flight proving tests. This could be done almost
entirely from the operator's dispatch center. For the initial upgrade
to part 121, the FAA will not require compliance with the initial
airplane proving tests requirements of Section 121.163(a) for airplanes
already used by the affected commuters in Part 135 operations.
As for the hourly airplane operating cost, some of the commenters
provided hourly-charter rates. However, the cost of the rule would not
necessitate that operators give up a revenue or charter flight to
complete the proving test. Therefore, the cost of the rule would be
only the direct operating cost of the airplane based on a direct
operating cost rate and not the charter rate. The FAA's estimate was
consistent with estimates provided by several airplane manufacturers.
Management Personnel. One commenter says that a number of their
management personnel would not meet the new criteria and that they
would have to hire all new personnel or a consultant. Other commenters
argue that existing personnel should be ``grandfathered in'' under the
final rule. Another commenter says that the requirement for part 121
operators that a director of maintenance have five years of experience
within the past five years excludes people who may have not worked for
an extended period during a job search.
FAA Response: The FAA contends that most currently employed
directors meet the new standards. However, for those directors who do
not, section 119.67(e) allows for operators to request deviation for
the continued employment of those directors. The FAA anticipates that
operators whose directors do not meet the new requirements would
request deviation.
In addition, the FAA agrees that the five years experience within
five years places an unnecessary burden on those directors who may have
extended periods of unemployment within the five year period prior to
being hired. Thus, the FAA is changing the requirement to three years
of experience in the past six years.
Definition of Commuter Air Carrier. Several commenters disagree
with the FAA's proposal to remove the frequency of operation from the
definition of a ``commuter operations''. The existing requirement
defines a commuter as one conducting five or more scheduled round-trips
per week. This allows on-demand operators to conduct up to four
scheduled operations per week. The commenters provide only general
comments that the new definition would impose costs.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters that the frequency
of operations test in part 135 should remain.
6. Benefits
The comments received on the estimated benefits mostly pertained to
the FAA's use of a general-accident-rate approach to estimating
benefits. The commenters object to the FAA's use of a broad-based
accident rate rather than identifying specific historic accidents that
the NPRM could have prevented. Other commenters note that the FAA
deviated from its usual method of calculating benefits. This method is
to identify specific types of accidents (based on the historical
record) that would be prevented by a corresponding requirement of the
proposed rule. Also, commenters indicate that the commuter accident
rate has been declining over the past several years thereby making much
of the rule unnecessary. Finally, commenters note that most of the
accidents involved pilot error, which is not being addressed by the
NPRM.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that most of the historic accidents
involved pilot error. However, many of the pilot error accidents were
the result of the pilot's improper response to an emergency situation.
An example of this would be an accident where an airplane experiences
some mechanical problem or adverse weather and the pilot fails to
follow the appropriate corrective procedures to prevent the accident.
Even if the accident could not have been prevented, the pilot may have
reacted in such a way that the damage or casualties were not mitigated
to the extent that they could have been.
The FAA used a general or broad-based accident rate because the
scope of the NPRM was broad, encompassing a wide range of safety issues
from certification, operations, cabin safety, maintenance, etc.
Similarly, the types of accidents the NPRM would prevent are also
broad, based on a wide range of probable causes of historic accidents.
For most of the accidents, the FAA could not determine if any one
requirement of the NPRM alone could have prevented or mitigated the
accident. This made it very difficult to divide the various probable
causes of the accidents to the various requirements that could have
prevented them. Thus, for the NPRM, the FAA contends that a general
broad based accident rate is more appropriate.
The FAA agrees that the historic accident rate for part 135
operators has declined. However, that rate is still consistently higher
than commuter-type operations under part 121. In the NPRM, the FAA
acknowledged that in some respects the part 135 accident rate is higher
due to some inherent differences in part 135 and part 121 commuter-type
operations. In other respects, the part 135 rate is higher because
those operators follow a different and less stringent set of safety
rules than part 121. The FAA contends that much of the gap in the
accident rate could be closed if all commercial passenger-carrying
operators adhered to the higher part 121 standards of safety.
7. Other Areas of Interest
Projected Ticket Prices. Several commenters state that the
projected ticket price increases of $1.91 and $.68, respectively for
10-to-19- and 20-to-30-seat airplanes is far off. Commenters from
Alaska presented the strongest disapproval of FAA's projected ticket-
price estimates.
FAA Response: The FAA's cost estimates of $1.91 and $.68 were not
far off because most of the commenters' higher costs claims did not
have merit. Except for some commenters from Alaska, the FAA did not
receive any direct-cost comments related to these two estimates. Since
these two cost estimates were based on the total cost of compliance for
the proposed rule, they would only change if there were a change in
costs for the commuter rule.
The FAA reviewed all of the cost comments submitted on the proposed
rule and rejected the vast majority of them due to the comments'
failure to substantiate their claims of higher costs.
In terms of the comments received from Alaskan operators, the FAA
agrees that their costs would be higher than $1.91 and $.68,
respectively. It is important to note that these projected ticket price
increases represent averages over the 10-year period. They are based on
the cost of compliance for each of the 10 years, summed over the
period, and divided by the number of years. Therefore, if particular
operators were to incur disproportionate higher costs, they would be
expected to pass those costs on, to the extent possible, in the form of
higher ticket prices. Ticket price increases would be highest for all
impacted operators during the first two to three years and decrease
gradually thereafter.
[[Page 65899]]
After accepting some of the cost comments and making adjustments
for changes in performance and certain equipment requirements, the
commuter rule is estimated to cost $118 million (as opposed to $275
million in the NPRM). Based on this estimate, the average annual per
ticket price increase for each of the two airplane-seat categories,
over the next 15 years, will be far less than the original estimates.
VIII. Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect
of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these
analyses, the FAA has determined that this Final Rule will generate
benefits that justify its costs and is ``a significant regulatory
action'' as defined in the Executive Order. The FAA estimates, however,
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. No part of the final rule will
constitute a barrier to international trade. These analyses, available
in the docket, are summarized below.
A. Sections Without Cost Impacts
Those part 121 sections that the FAA has determined will not impose
additional costs on part 135 commuter operators are not described in
this summary evaluation. Each of those part 121 sections will not
impose costs for one of the following reasons: (1) Current practice is
identical or very similar to the new requirement; (2) the new
requirement represents minor procedural changes; (3) the section
determines general applicability and does not specifically impose any
costs; or (4) certain requirements of part 135 would be incorporated
into part 121 without change. Those part 121 sections without costs are
described in the full evaluation under each of the areas for which they
apply. While not shown in this summary evaluation, it is important to
note that 10 of the sections in the final rule were identified as
having negligible costs. These negligible costs, even when combined,
will not be significant.
B. Sections With Cost Impact
The rule will impose costs on part 135 operators with 10-to-30-seat
airplanes. The FAA estimates the total cost of the rule will be $117.80
million over the next 15 years in 1994 dollars, with a present value of
$75.19 million (7 percent discount rate). The total potential costs for
10-to-19- and 20-to-30-seat airplanes are presented in the following
areas:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-19 20-30 Total Present
seats seats cost value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations........................ $48.32 $24.87 $73.19 $46.18
Maintenance....................... 12.93 5.26 18.19 11.93
Cabin Safety...................... 5.99 5.58 11.57 8.20
Part 119.......................... 2.73 0.63 3.36 2.30
Certification..................... 10.39 1.10 11.49 6.58
-------------------------------------
Total......................... $80.36 $37.44 $117.80 $75.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the $80.36 million figure shown above, the FAA estimates
that, on average over the next 15 years, the price of a one-way airline
ticket will increase by $0.62 for affected operators with 10-to-19-seat
airplanes. Similarly, based on the $37.44 million figure, the ticket
price will increase by $0.30 for affected operators with 20-to-30-seat
airplanes.
It is important to note that the total cost per airplane in each of
the first four years of the rule sheds light on the initial compliance
costs. These costs per airplane are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-to-19- 20-to-30-
seat seat
airplanes airplanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.......................................... $19,400 $21,900
1997.......................................... 7,600 6,600
1998.......................................... 7,000 6,300
1999.......................................... 7,200 5,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Operations
This section of the regulatory evaluation examines the costs of the
changes with regard to operations. Fifteen-year costs for operations
requirements will total $73.19 million ($46.18 million, present value).
The cost items, by section, are provided below.
Section 121.97: Airports Required Data. Each domestic and flag air
carrier must show that each route it submits for approval has enough
airports that are properly equipped and adequate for the proposed
operation. Consideration is given items as size, surface, obstructions,
etc. In short, this requirement will ensure that in the event of a
single-engine failure each operator's airplane type (regardless of the
number of airplanes) can either stop at the end of the runway or, if it
continues to fly, can safely clear all of the obstacles in the flight
path.
To estimate the potential cost of this requirement, the FAA
contacted several commuter operators. According to these operators, the
potential cost of compliance is based on performance-obstacle-data
analyses for airplane types at particular airports. To ensure that the
performance objective will be met, operators are required to make
certain that the maximum-allowable-takeoff weight is always achieved
under certain temperature conditions. This is done by conducting
performance analyses for each airplane type at the airport it intends
to operate. To achieve this objective, operators typically hire a
contractor to perform obstacle-location and height surveys. The
contractor uses the airplane's flight-manual-performance data to assess
flap settings and runway-end capability for a particular airport for
information related to takeoff-run-acceleration distance, runway
length, anti-skid, etc.
The typical contractor fee is $20 per runway. For example, ABC
airlines is a commuter operator with 5 types of airplanes that it
wishes to operate at airports in 10 cities. Each city has an airport
with 10 runways. The operator, however, only intends to use two runways
per airport in each of the 10 cities. The cost performing the needed
obstacle performance data analyses is $2,000 ($20 per runway x 10
airports x 2 runways per airport x 5 airplane types). While this is a
simple example of estimating a fictitious operator's potential cost of
compliance, it sheds light on the difficulty of deriving such
[[Page 65900]]
costs reliably. Although reliable information is available on the cost
of contractor conducted obstacle-performance-data analyses, the same
reliability does not apply to the number of runways or airports
commuter operators will use. Potential costs for this requirement
cannot be estimated reliably without knowing what airports, runways,
and the types of airplanes operators will use. It is for this reason
that this section of the evaluation contains no estimate for costs.
Despite this situation, the FAA contends that this requirement is an
important element in achieving the one-level-of-safety objective.
Section 121.99: Communications Facilities. Currently, this section
requires each domestic and flag air carrier to show availability of a
two-way air/ground radio communication system at points that will
ensure reliable and rapid communications, under normal operating
conditions over the entire route (either direct or via approved point-
to-point circuits). Each carrier also must show that the system is
accessible between each airplane and appropriate dispatch office, and
between each airplane and the appropriate ATC unit. In addition, each
system must be independent of any other system operated by the United
States.
To estimate the potential cost, the FAA contacted several industry
sources, including operators and data link service venders. These
sources indicated that the least expensive option for most operators
would be a voice data link service from an FAA-approved vender.
According to Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) and several operators
with operations specifications for parts 121 and 135 (scheduled), the
needed voice-data-link service consists of a monthly access fee of $35
per operator and a fee of $14 per contact. Contact refers to any form
of voice communication between the pilot while in flight and the home
dispatcher.
If, from a worst case standpoint, none of the current commuters
have this access service, the total cost will be the number of affected
operators times the monthly access fee of $35 over the next 15 years.
This evaluation estimates that the number of commuter operators will
range from 63 in 1996 to 73 in 2010. This will result in a total cost
of $445 million ($269 million, present value). The contact fee cost can
be estimated in a similar manner, though it employs a great deal more
of uncertainty because the actual number of contacts each operator will
make annually is unknown and usually varies among operators. According
to industry sources, there will be a certain percentage of contacts per
annual departures for each airplane in an operator's fleet. Based on
information contained in the Regional Airlines Association's Annual
Report for 1994, each airplane in the U.S. commuter fleet makes an
average of 5.68 departures per day or 2,074 annually. The number of
airplanes with 10 to 30 seats in the U.S. commuter fleet is projected
to range from 950 in 1996 to 1,099 in 2010.
Initially for this evaluation, the FAA assumed at least one contact
per departure. Multiplying the 2,074 annual departures times the $14
contact fee gives the total potential contact cost of $445 million
($269 million, present) over the next 15 years. In realistic terms,
however, this cost estimate is too high because it does not reflect the
actual practice in industry. According to several operators, contacts
via ARINC or a similar service would only be made during emergency
situations (for example, flight delays, inclement weather, etc.).
Within an average radius of 50 nautical miles, contacts can be
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
made
directly between the airplane pilot and the home dispatcher, without
the aid of an external-communications-voice-data network (e.g., ARINC
or a similar service). In flat lands, this communication can be made up
to 100 miles, when the dispatcher is located at the hub. In high
terrain areas, communication with the home dispatcher would have a
radius of less than 50 miles. In emergency situations that arise beyond
the average radius of 50 miles, ARINC or similar service would be
needed. This would be especially true in remote areas such as the U.S.
northern frontier (Montana, Idaho, etc.), Alaska, American Samoa, and
Hawaii. This information indicates that frequency of use of ARINC or a
similar service may not be as high as originally expected. According to
some operators, the likelihood of having at least one contact via ARINC
per airplane departure by an operator, on average, could range from 5
to 10 percent. When considering that contacts via ARINC or a similar
service beyond the 50-mile radius would only be made in emergency
situations, operators, on average, would make contact on 10 percent of
their airplane departures. Employing this approach, costs will amount
to $44 million ($26 million, present value) over the next 15 years.
In addition to the information above, industry sources contacted
indicated that commuter operators with dual or split operations
specifications (both parts 121 and 135) already have this capability.
These operators (approximately 19) account for over 60 percent of all
the airplanes in the U.S. commuter fleet. This scenario will result in
estimated costs of $18.9 million ($11.5 million, present value) over
the next 15 years. This cost estimate also recognizes that the number
of contacts will be lower because pilots typically contact ATC for
information related primarily to weather and air traffic delays.
Therefore, this evaluation assumes only 10 percent of the commuter
airplane departures, by operators without dual operations
specifications, will engage in contacts via ARINC or similar service.
Section 121.135--Contents of Manual. This section will require an
extensive list of manual contents for operators. Unlike part 135, part
121 requires more detailed instructions to flight and ground personnel,
including dispatch procedures, airport information, and approach
procedures. The manuals of part 121 operators are, on average, three
times as voluminous as those of part 135 operators. Thus, compliance
with the final rule will result in major rewrites of manuals. Based on
cost information received from industry, affected operators will spend
an additional $50,000 on average ($30,000 to $70,000) each for new
manuals. This cost estimate multiplied times the number of operators
over the next 15 years will total approximately $3.65 million, ($3.28
million, present value). This cost estimate for manuals takes into
account additional preparation and distribution requirements.
Section 121.337--Protective Breathing Equipment (PBE) for the
Cockpit. This section will require PBE units for persons operating
airplanes under part 121. Part 135 has no PBE requirement. While
commuter airplanes are typically smaller than airplanes operating under
part 121, the accessibility of PBE in the cockpit will provide smoke-
and-fumes protection for pilots. The airplane operator is allowed to
use fixed equipment such as oxygen masks and smoke goggles at each
pilot station. Depending on the present airplane configuration, this
may require substantial modifications.
According to FAA's technical personnel, airplanes with 20-to-30
seats already have fixed PBE units for pilot stations in the cockpit
for smoke and fume protection but they are not equipped with a portable
PBE unit for fire fighting. In terms of operators with 10-to-19-seat
airplanes, the FAA is uncertain as to how many part 135 operators are
already equipped with PBE (portable or fixed) in the cockpit. As the
result of this uncertainty, this evaluation assumes that part 135
operators with 10-to-19-seat airplanes are not currently equipped with
PBE in
[[Page 65901]]
the cockpit. This evaluation also assumes that operators with 20-to-30-
seat airplanes do not have portable PBE in the cockpit for
firefighting. The installation of fixed PBE in some commuter airplanes
could be prohibitively expensive because of complex breathing gas
supply requirements. Since portable PBE is much cheaper than fixed PBE,
operators with 10-to-19-seat commuter airplanes are assumed to acquire
and install portable smoke and fume PBE in the cockpit if not equipped
with an oxygen system. Each portable PBE is estimated to cost $400 per
unit. In 1996 and subsequent years, operators with 10-to-19-seat
airplanes are assumed to install two smoke-and-fumes portable PBE units
in the cockpit: one at each of the two pilot stations. Over this same
period, operators with 20-to-30-seat airplanes are assumed to install
one additional fire-fighting-portable PBE unit in the cockpit. In
addition to PBE units, costs are also estimated for the weight penalty
of each PBE unit. Each of the cost components multiplied by the number
of airplanes in existence, over the next 15 years, will result in an
estimated cost of $2.64 million, ($1.81 million, present value).
Section 121.357--Airborne Weather Radar. This section will require
part 135 commuters to equip their airplanes with approved weather
radar. Currently, section 135.173 requires that operators equip their
airplanes with either thunderstorm detection equipment or approved
weather radar. However, section 135.175 requires operators of airplanes
with 20 to 30 passenger seats to equip their airplanes with weather
radar. An estimated 90 percent of all commuter airplanes with 10-to-19
passenger seats already have approved weather radar equipment. Based on
this information, the rule will only affect an estimated 10 percent of
those operators of airplanes with 10-to-19 seats (excluding commuter
operators in Alaska and Hawaii which are not covered by the rule).
Because of their unique flying environments, commuter operators in
Hawaii and Alaska are not required under current regulations to be
equipped with weather radar equipment. Weather radar costs
approximately $30,000 per airplane, including installation. Each
weather radar unit weighs 25 pounds. This weight translates into an
average weight penalty of 87 gallons of fuel per airplane per year. The
sum of these cost components multiplied by the number of commuter
airplanes over the next 15 years will total $5.08 million ($3.73
million, present value).
Sections 121.593-595: Dispatching authority for domestic and flag
air carriers; 121.107: Dispatch centers; 121.533-535: Responsibility
for operational control; 121.683: Crewmember and dispatcher record;
121.687: Dispatch release; and other sections that assign specific
duties to dispatchers. The rule will require that flights in scheduled
commuter operations with 10-to-30 seat airplanes be authorized by a
dispatcher. Dispatchers currently are not required under part 135. The
FAA assumes that the majority of operators currently certificated only
under part 135 do not employ fully qualified dispatchers. These
operators primarily employ full-time flight locators. The FAA further
assumes that operators conducting both parts 121 and 135 operations
currently employ half as many qualified dispatchers as they will need
to dispatch all of their flights.
The number of dispatchers was primarily calculated using
information provided by Airline Dispatchers Federation (ADF) and
industry sources. The ADF estimated that an air carrier with 30
airplanes will need eight or nine dispatchers to staff a 24-hour
operation. The FAA used a ratio of eight dispatchers to 30 airplanes of
10 or more passenger seats for each part 135 commuter air carrier. The
total number of required dispatchers was computed by multiplying the
number of airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats operated by each
air carrier by the ratio 8 to 30. However, to take into account that an
8-hour day might not cover all of an air carrier's daily flights, as
well as vacation and sick leave, the FAA assumes that each air carrier
will need at least two dispatchers. In 1996, 307 dispatchers will be
needed to meet the requirements of this rule. In 1997, the number of
dispatchers will be 318 and will grow to 353 by 2010.
Unlike in regulatory evaluation for the proposed rule, the cost of
compliance for the final rule is based primarily on the median annual
salary differential between flight locators and dispatchers. The FAA
estimated the median annual salary of a part 135 dispatcher on the
hourly wage of $9.10 reported by the ADF. The FAA computed an annual
median salary of $23,849 for a dispatcher by multiplying the ADF's
hourly wage rate estimate of $9.10 times a fringe benefits factor of
1.26 (or 26 percent) and full-time yearly hours of 2,080 (52 wks. x
40 hrs.). Similarly, the median annual salary of a flight locator was
estimated to be $19,656 ($7.50 x 1.26 x 2,080). The annual median
salary differential was estimated to be $4,193 ($23,849 less $19,656).
Based primarily on information received from FAA technical
personnel and industry (operators and ADF's comments on the NPRM),
about 67 percent of the required flight dispatchers will come from
existing part 135 flight locators and approximately 33 percent of the
required dispatchers will be hired from outside by operators. Some of
these new hires will be supervisors/trainers. According to several
commuter operators contacted recently, they will have to hire
dispatchers from outside of their company in order for them to meet the
proposed dispatcher requirements. The decision to hire dispatchers from
the outside is based primarily on: (1) The need for additional
supervisory personnel because of the projected number of inexperienced
dispatchers to be hired under part 121 and (2) all of their existing
personnel (flight locators and to some flight followers) cannot be
trained at once without seriously disrupting daily operations. Thus, of
all the new dispatchers projected to be hired over the next 15 years,
about 67 percent will be from existing personnel (upgraded from flight
locators and some flight followers) with the affected commuter
operators and 33 percent from the outside (or non-upgraded employees).
Training costs include 40 hours of initial training, 10 hours of
recurrent training, and 5 hours of operating familiarization for
dispatchers who authorize turbopropeller flights (as required by
sections 121.422(c)(1)(ii), 121.427(c)(4)(ii), and 121.463(a)(2)). Air
carriers are assumed to incur the cost of dispatchers' salaries during
training. In addition to salary costs, the FAA assumes that the air
carrier will incur $1,000 in costs for initial training for each
dispatcher and $500 in costs for recurrent training for each
dispatcher. The FAA estimates that each carrier will incur $1,000 in
administrative costs for each dispatcher hired. The FAA recognizes that
during the initial and follow-up training for new dispatchers,
operators may incur additional costs in the form of reduced operational
efficiency, though to what extent is unknown. However, in view of all
available information, the FAA has no indication that such costs would
be significant.
Total personnel-related costs were calculated by adding the salary,
training, administrative costs, and multiplying by the number of new
dispatchers required. The FAA estimates that the dispatcher requirement
will cost $42.86 million ($25.9 million, present value) over the next
15 years. Approximately $25.66
[[Page 65902]]
million ($15.49 million, present value) will be borne by operators of
10-to-19-seat airplanes, and the remaining $17.20 million ($10.38
million, present value) will be borne by operators of 20-to-30-seat
airplanes.
According to the ADF, most part 135 operators already have
facilities and communications equipment that satisfy the dispatch
requirements under part 121. Accordingly, the FAA has not included
estimates of additional costs attributable to facilities and equipment.
The FAA acknowledges that this is a reasonable assessment since all
commuter operators exercise some degree of operational control with the
use of either flight locating or flight following. The provision of
either one of these services requires communication facilities and
associated equipment.
Section 121.383: Age-60 Requirement. This section will prohibit
operators of airplanes in scheduled service with 10-to-30 passenger
seats from using people over the age of 60 as pilots for that service.
Currently there is no age restriction for pilots in part 135
operations. Based on data provided by the Air Line Pilots Association
(ALPA), the FAA estimates that only about 0.55 percent of part 135
commuter pilots are currently over the age of 60. The FAA estimates
that about 45 pilots will be affected if the requirement takes effect
in the year 1999. The FAA also estimates, based on ALPA data, that 0.32
percent of current part 135 pilots would reach age 60 in subsequent
years and thus about 27 pilots would need to be replaced each year from
1999 on.
The FAA is unable to quantify the costs to operators or to affected
pilots. The nature and magnitude of these costs depend upon the
alternatives available to each party, which the FAA has been unable to
identify in sufficient detail to estimate costs. The FAA believes that
the four-year phase-in of this requirement will help to minimize any
potential disruptions the rule may cause and that the resulting cost
are not likely to be substantial. The FAA also believes that the age 60
requirement is essential to achieve the ``one level of safety'' goal
established by the Secretary of Transportation and that any cost of
this requirement is justified by its benefits.
2. Cabin Safety
This section of the regulatory evaluation examines the costs of the
changes with regard to cabin safety. Over the next 15 years, costs for
cabin safety items will total $11.57 million ($8.20 million, present
value). The cost items, by section, are provided below.
Sections 121.133, 121.135, and 121.137--Flight Attendant Manual.
These sections will require all flight attendants to have an operations
manual. There is no such requirement for flight attendants currently
working for part 135 operators. This requirement necessitates preparing
such manuals for each flight attendant . Since each flight attendant is
required to have a manual, the number of manuals equals the number of
flight attendants. The 15-year cost for the preparation, copying, and
binding of these manuals is $61,600 ($47,200, present value). The costs
involve the preparation of the manual contents and the copying and
binding of the finished manual. FAA analysis projects 277 20-to-30-seat
airplanes in 20 air carriers in 1996, increasing to 556 such airplanes
in 39 air carriers by 2010. Each air carrier will employ a flight
attendant supervisor (paid at $24.19 per hour) and a clerical worker
(paid at $11.00 per hour) to spend 40 hours each preparing a manual;
hence, it will cost each air carrier about $1,400 to prepare a manual.
The manual is an average of 100 pages long; at $.10 to copy each page,
and $2 to bind each manual, total copying and binding costs is expected
to total $12 for each manual. Existing air carriers with new airplanes
in the future will have to reproduce a new manual for each airplane.
All new air carriers with 20-to-30-seat airplanes, which will total 19
by 2010, will also have to prepare and publish flight attendant
manuals.
Section 121.285 and 121.589--Carry-On Baggage. These sections will
require affected operators to stow carry-on baggage and develop a
program to screen carry-on baggage. Screening, in this context, refers
to a visual check to ensure that the carry-on baggage is the proper
size and could be stored properly on the airplane; it does not refer to
security screening. Currently, part 135 airplanes adhere to substantive
baggage stowage procedures, but part 121.589 requires that a crewmember
verify that all baggage is properly secured before all doors are closed
and the airplane leaves the gate. Some air carriers argue that this
requirement will increase time at the gate, reduce airplane utilization
time, and thus result in lower revenue to air carriers. The FAA
contends that there will be no costs for this procedure due to the
minimal time necessary to properly secure carry-on baggage and the fact
that airplanes experience routine delays anyway while waiting for
clearance on the runway. The cost of the rule will involve the
preparation of an addendum to the Operations Specifications in which
each carrier will outline its procedures for a baggage program.
The 15-year cost for operators of 10-to-30-seat airplanes to
prepare a carry-on baggage addendum to the Operations Specifications
will be $20,600 ($18,500, present value). This cost is divided between
10-to-19-seat airplanes ($12,300) and 20-to-30-seat airplanes ($8,300).
For each air carrier, this process involves two people--a flight
attendant supervisor for 20-to-30-seat airplanes or a crewmember
supervisor for 10-to-19-seat airplanes (both paid at $24.19 per hour)
and a clerical person ($11.00 per hour) to do the paperwork (average of
8 hours each) and to develop the addendum. Each carrier will bear the
cost of developing the addendum for the airplanes in its fleet; it
costs each air carrier about $280 for this work. The number of air
carriers is projected to rise from 63 in 1996 to 73 in 2010. Finally,
the actual baggage screening function will not impose costs because
part 135 crewmembers are already required to screen baggage in order to
secure it.
Section 121.291(d)--Ditching Demonstration. This section requires
new air carriers to conduct a ditching demonstration for each airplane
type it proposes to operate in extended overwater operations. There is
no similar requirement in part 135.
In the NPRM, the FAA used an estimate that 25 percent of all 10-to-
30-seat airplanes conduct extended overwater flights. Upon further
examination, this assumption turned out to be too high. Based on a
recent survey, the FAA has ascertained that less than 3 percent of all
10-to-19 seat airplanes (14 airplanes) and no 20-to-30-seat airplanes
currently conduct overwater flights. The percentages were projected
into the future. Based on this paucity of airplanes certificated for
extended overwater flights, the FAA tried to estimate the costs for
part 135 operators to conduct ditching evacuation demonstrations for
new 10-to-30-seat airplanes using two different methods. In both cases,
as will be shown below, the 15-year cost for part 135 operators to
conduct ditching evacuation demonstrations for new 10-to-30-seat
airplanes will be zero.
The first method involves taking an aggregate approach and
examining the entire fleet using the same methodology used in the NPRM.
This involves a demonstration which requires crewmembers to perform
ditching evacuation drills and safety procedures including the
deployment of one raft. For both 10-to-19- and 20-to-30-seat airplanes
the annual incremental change in the number of airplanes times the
applicable percentage of airplanes conducting extended overwater
flights was zero for every year between 1996 and 2010. Accordingly,
using this methodology, the cost will be zero.
[[Page 65903]]
The second method involved individually examining those air
carriers that this provision affects. The FAA was able to identify
those operators that conduct extended overwater operations with 10-to-
30-seat airplanes. In every case, the airplanes involved were 10-to-19-
seat types. Since the FAA is projecting only a modest increase in such
airplanes through 1997 and an overall decline in 10-to-19-seat
airplanes after 1997, it is highly unlikely that these operators will
seek to increase their fleet size with a new airplane make and model
currently not in its fleet that will require a ditching evacuation
demonstration. Therefore, there will be no cost.
Both the operator and the FAA incur labor costs to complete a
ditching demonstration. The actual demonstration takes about one hour
to complete and requires two sets of crews. If an operator should need
to conduct a ditching demonstration, the FAA estimates the cost for a
10-to-19 seat airplane at $1,025 per demonstration.
Section 121.309--Medical Kits. This section will require affected
commuters to have one medical kit on each 20-to-30-seat airplane for
those operators. The FAA has decided to except 10-to-19-seat airplanes
from this requirement due to their smaller size and the unlikelihood
that a medical professional will be on board or a flight attendant to
administer the use of the kit.
The FAA estimates that the 15-year cost for providing medical kits
on the 20-to-30-seat airplanes operating under part 135 will be $1.11
million ($674,300, present value). The costs of providing medical kits
are composed of acquisition ($200 each) with a 60 percent spares
reserve, installation, annual replacement (5 percent), annual
maintenance ($20 per kit), a weight penalty (7 pounds per unit),
physician consultation expenses ($500 per consultation), engineering
and administrative costs, and record keeping (1 hour each time a kit is
used at $20.58 per hour).
Acquisition, replacement, and maintenance costs for kits are a
function of the number of airplanes. In the first year of the rule, the
bulk of the medical kits will be purchased; 443 kits will be needed for
277 airplanes, which takes into account the 60 percent spares reserve.
Additional kits are purchased in the future as the airplane fleet
increases to 556 airplanes in 2010, and to take into account a 5
percent annual replacement rate. Maintenance costs are calculated based
on the number of units that were in use the previous year. The annual
maintenance cost equals $8,860 ($20 per kit x 443 kits) for all kits
(active and spares) in 1997.
Historical data on part 121 airplanes shows one medical emergency
for every 124,647 passenger enplanements. The FAA assumes that the
medical emergency rate is the same on 20-to-30-seat airplanes since all
air carriers serve the same base population. The FAA estimates 70
medical emergencies in 1996 and 77 medical emergencies in 1997. A
physician consultation will be required twice a year per air carrier to
obtain certain contents, such as prescription drugs, for the medical
kits at a cost of $500 per consultation. In 1996, for the 20 projected
air carriers, total consultations will total $20,000. Record keeping
will be needed per medical emergency; it will take one hour to write up
each emergency. At $20.58 per hour, in 1996, record keeping costs will
total $1,433.
In the NPRM, the FAA assumed that the medical kits could be secured
and installed with industrial strength Velcro tape. The FAA still
believes that securing these kits with Velcro (a low cost option, at
$20 per kit plus two hours for a Maintenance worker at $20.58 per hour)
will meet the 18-G requirement. Also, airplane manufacturers will need
to spend $1,500 for each make and model to account for the design and
administrative costs involved with securing these kits and to comply
with FAA regulations; with 8 makes and models, this totals $12,000.
This cost will be spread across the entire population of each make and
model.
Section 121.309--First Aid Kit. This section will require 10-to-19-
seat airplanes to have at least one first aid kit. Currently, part 135
requires all airplanes with greater than 19 seats to have one kit, but
there is no requirement for airplanes with 10 to 19 seats to have a
kit.
The 15-year cost of this requirement will be $371,400 ($267,400,
present value). The costs of providing first aid kits are composed of
acquisition ($70 each based on industry survey) with a 35 percent
spares reserve, installation, annual replacement rate (5 percent of
total), a weight penalty (4 pounds), engineering and administrative
costs, and annual maintenance ($7 per kit). Costs are a function of the
10-to-19-seat airplane count, which ranges from 673 in 1996 to 543 in
2010.
Section 121.309--Halon Fire Extinguisher. This section will require
commuter operators of 10-to-30-seat airplanes to replace existing or
install fire extinguishers (2 per 10-to-30-seat airplane (one in cabin
and one in cockpit) with halon fire extinguishers. For this analysis,
the FAA assumes that no part 135 airplanes are currently equipped with
halon fire extinguishers. Since part 135 airplanes are already equipped
with fire extinguishers prior to complying with part 121 standards,
there will be no additional maintenance costs or weight penalties for
this equipment.
The 15-year cost of this requirement is $442,900 ($346,500, present
value). The cost of this provision will involve purchasing the
requisite number of halon fire extinguishers per airplane in 1996, a 13
percent spares reserve ratio, and a 5 percent recharge rate per year
after 1996, and up-front administrative costs.
Section 121.549--Flashlight. This section will require commuter
operators of 20-to-30-seat airplanes to acquire two additional portable
flashlights for use by the flight attendant and the copilot. This
section will also require 10-to-19-seat airplanes to acquire one
additional portable flashlight for use by the copilot. The analysis
assumes that no part 135 airplanes with 10-to-30 seats are equipped
with portable flashlights. Based on a recent survey, a portable
flashlight costs $5 and 2 D alkaline battery cells cost $2.25.
The 15-year cost of this requirement will be $134,400 ($82,000,
present value) broken out between $56,500 for 10-to-19-seat airplanes
and $77,900 for 20-to-30-seat airplanes. The cost of this provision
will involve purchasing the requisite number of flashlights for
airplanes in 1996 and for airplanes added to the fleet through 2010, 10
percent spares, 5 percent replacement rate for every year after 1996,
and a weight penalty (1 pound per flashlight). The analysis also
assumes that all batteries will be replaced each year.
Section 121.313--Cockpit Key. This section will require all
required crewmembers of affected operators to have access to a key for
the locking cockpit door. This lock and key requirement will provide
additional security for equipment and instruments in the cockpit. This
requirement only applies to 20-to-30-seat airplanes. Airplanes with 10
to 19 seats are not required to have locking cockpit doors and will not
be affected by this requirement. The rule will require 20-to-30-seat
airplanes to retrofit the cockpit door with a lock and copy a key ($1
per key). If an airplane does not have a lock, then the operators will
be required to install one.
The 15-year cost is $102,900 ($78,500, present value). The highest
yearly cost ($51,245) will occur in 1996 when all of the 277 20-to-30-
seat airplanes will have their cockpit doors retrofitted with locks
[[Page 65904]]
and keys. Subsequent yearly costs are based on the annual increase in
airplanes. Hence, in 1997, with 30 new airplanes, costs total $5,550
($90 for new keys + $5,460 for door retrofit costs).
Section 121.333--Portable Oxygen. This section will require
airplanes that are certificated to fly above 25,000 feet to have a
portable oxygen unit for each flight attendant. This requirement will
only apply to commuter airplanes having more than 19 seats. This is
because currently no 10-to-19-seat airplanes in commuter operations are
certificated to fly above 25,000 feet.; also, 10-to-19-seat airplanes
are not required to have flight attendants on board. Of the 249 20-to-
30 seat airplanes in 1995, 146 fly over 25,000 feet.
The 15-year cost to equip all affected 20-to-30-seat part 135
airplanes will be $472,900 ($299,200, present value). Costs primarily
are composed of $400 per oxygen unit and weight penalty.
Parts 121.333, 121.571, 121.573--Passenger Information. New cards
will have to be prepared for 20-to-30-seat airplanes. Industry
experience has shown that each card has a lifetime of approximately 3
years. Thus, every year, only one-third of the cards will normally be
replaced.
The 15-year cost for the preparation of these cards will be
$125,000 ($72,300, present value). Each air carrier having 20-to-30
seat airplanes (20 in 1996 growing to 39 in 2010) will incur
preparation costs and will then need to prepare enough passenger
information cards for all airplanes in its fleet. Preparation costs
involve two people two hours each: a flight attendant supervisor
($24.19 per hour) and a paperwork layout specialist ($20.58 per hour).
There will be no training costs, as the flight attendant could read the
new passenger information material directly from the manual. Based on
an industry survey, the FAA assumes that it costs $1 to print and
distribute each information card; a total of 5,353 cards will need to
be produced in 1996.
Section 121.337--Protective Breathing Equipment (PBE) for the
Cabin. This section requires a fire fighting PBE unit in the cabin on
all 20-to-30-seat airplanes. The 15-year costs to supply all 20-to-30-
seat airplanes total $936,800 ($595,600, present value). Costs are
composed of PBE acquisition ($400 per unit) with a 40 percent spares
reserve ratio, installation (two hours of mechanic labor), engineering
and administration costs, a 5 percent replacement rate per year, annual
maintenance ($40 per unit performed annually), and a weight penalty (5
pounds per unit, one unit per airplane).
Section 121.339--Life Rafts. This section requires all affected
commuters conducting extended overwater operations to carry an
additional life raft. The 15-year cost to equip the affected airplanes
with an additional life raft will be $265,100 ($183,800, present
value).
Section 121.340--Flotation Cushions and Life Vests. This section
requires operators to provide a flotation cushion or life vest for each
passenger seat on each airplane. In 1995, 10-to-19-seat airplanes
average 18.66 seats per airplane and 20-to-30-seat airplanes average
28.99 seats per airplane. In this analysis, the FAA assumes that these
ratios remain constant into the future.
The 15-year cost for providing flotation cushions or life vests on
10-to-30-seat airplanes will be $7.50 million ($5.53 million, present
value) composed of $5.03 million for 10-to-19-seat airplanes and $2.47
million for 20-to-30-seat airplanes. The FAA assumes that 10-to-19-seat
airplanes will not be able to install flotation cushions and hence will
obtain life vests. In addition, even though some airplanes may have
flotation cushions currently installed, the analysis assumes that all
operators of 20-to-30-seat airplanes will replace existing seat
cushions with flotation cushions. Data from industry sources place the
same cost and weight on both items: $50 and 2 pounds each. As the
current seat cushions weigh the same amount, there will not be a weight
penalty on the 20-to-30-seat airplanes. The total number of life vests
and cushions per year is derived by multiplying the number of seats per
airplane times the projected airplane count for the 10-to-19-seat and
20-to-30-seat airplane categories.
Section 121.391--Flight Attendants At The Gate. This section
requires a flight attendant or other authorized person to stay on the
airplane during intermediate stops while passengers are on board. The
final rule adopts new section 121.393(a) for 10-to-19 seat airplanes to
allow crewmembers (not necessarily a flight attendant) to stay near the
airplane.
The only costs imposed on operators, as a result of this rule will
be the training and documentation of authorized substitute personnel.
Based on information received from FAA technical personnel, there will
be no additional crewmember personnel costs for flight attendants or
other crewmembers at the gate requirement due to the delay. In the
NPRM, the FAA attributed additional compensation costs to operators in
the event of a flight delay due to additional time spent by personnel
to monitor passengers. FAA technical personnel state that delay costs
are a result of the air carrier operations system and not the final
rule. The air carrier operations system currently compensates any
additional personnel costs due to delays.
Individual operators can comply by having a flight crewmember near
the airplane (no cost) or by following one of three scenarios. Under
the first scenario, operators could require all passengers to deplane
during intermediate stops at the gate. Because deplaning will cause
inconvenience to the passengers, air carriers will not use this option
all the time. The FAA acknowledges that the deplanement of passengers
under this scenario may impose some cost on passengers in the form of
inconvenience; however, the FAA is unable to quantify this cost. Under
the second scenario, operators can require either a flight attendant or
pilot to remain on the airplane at intermediate stops as long as
passengers are on board. Generally, the 20-to-30 seat airplanes will
use a flight attendant, while 10-to-19 seat airplanes will use a pilot.
Under the third scenario, operators can allow a trained, authorized
person to stand in for the flight attendant or pilot when coverage is
needed due to flight delay. Not all air carriers have authorized
personnel at all intermediate stops; this will put a cap on the amount
of time that this option will be used. This third scenario will require
24 hours of training for each authorized person ($16.48 per hour) and
documentation of personnel records by a clerical worker (paid at $11.00
per hour for one hour of work per record). In the NPRM, the FAA assumed
that non-Alaska operators would use the third scenario 20 percent of
the time, and the FAA is keeping this percentage. Based on industry
sources, the FAA does not believe it is very likely that air carriers
in Alaska will have trained substitute personnel waiting at the
intermediate stops to be used in the event that the airplane is
delayed; thus, the third scenario will not be used. Currently, 88.4
percent of all 20-to-30 seat airplanes and 91.9 percent of all 10-to-19
airplanes fly in areas other than Alaska, and this analysis projects
these percentages into the future.
The 15-year cost for training and documentation of authorized
personnel in areas other than Alaska on 10-to-30-seat airplanes will be
$20,500 (present value, $12,700). This cost is the summation of the 10-
to-19-seat airplane cost and the 20-to-30-seat airplane category cost.
The cost for the 10-to-19-seat category is derived by multiplying the
total 15-year cost for training and documentation ($67,500) by the
[[Page 65905]]
expected probability of occurrence for the third scenario (20%) and
then multiplying by the percentage of the fleet not operating in Alaska
(91.9%). The cost for the 20-to-30-seat category is derived by
multiplying the total 15-year cost for training and documentation
($45,500) by the expected probability of occurrence for the third
scenario (20%) and then multiplying by the percentage of the fleet not
operating in Alaska (88.4%).
3. Certification
This section examines the costs of the rule with regards to
airplane certification and performance. The total 15-year costs for
certification are $11.49 million with a present value of $6.58 million.
Part 121 Subpart I: Performance Criteria. In the NPRM, the FAA had
stated its belief that all of the commuter airplanes would be able to
meet the part 121 performance standards. Consequently, the only
compliance cost would be a manufacturer's one-time recertification cost
of $5,000 per airplane. However, after additional FAA analysis and
input from several commenters, the FAA realizes that some of these
airplanes are not able to meet the part 121 performance standards.
Further, there will be an enormous economic impact if the proposed rule
were to be adopted for all commuter airplanes.
Airplanes operating under part 121 face stricter performance
requirements than those faced by airplanes operating under part 135.
Part 135 performance requirements allow greater gross take-off weights
for a given runway length and, conversely, allow a shorter runway for a
given gross take-off weight than are allowed under part 121 for high
altitude and/or high temperature conditions. However, as airplane
models' performance capabilities differ, a change in performance
requirements has a different effect across airplane models.
For example, the SFAR 41 and predecessor category commuter airplane
performance capabilities are such that compliance with the part 121
performance requirements would require them to offload so many
passengers or cargo as to become unprofitable to operate in scheduled
passenger service. Due to the potential substantial economic loss and
the potential safety reduction that would result when many of these
airplane operators substitute airplanes with fewer than 10 passenger
seats for these airplanes, the FAA decides that they will have 15 years
to meet the part 121 performance requirements. By allowing these
airplanes to remain in scheduled passenger service, their operators
will have a sufficient amount of time to profitably exploit these
airplanes, to plan their replacement, and to reduce the potential
impact on the resale price in other uses of these airplanes. In
addition, this 15-year period will provide an opportunity for
manufacturers to develop future airplanes that may be better
substitutes than the current available substitute airplane models.
Further, this 15-year allowance will reduce the tendency for many of
these operators to substitute smaller airplanes with less than 10
seats. These airplanes have an accident rate 14 times that of 10-to-15-
seat commuter airplanes. Nevertheless, some of these airplanes will be
phased out of scheduled passenger service before they would have been
phased out if there were no commuter rule.
Currently, there are 112 pre-SFAR 41 commuter airplanes in part 135
scheduled service. As the FAA was unable to directly obtain the ages of
these airplanes, the FAA used a data source to construct an approximate
age-profile distribution for each of these airplane models and then
assigned the appropriate number of airplanes to individual years based
on those distributions. The FAA determines that, due to the increasing
maintenance costs as airplanes age, the economic lifespan of these
airplanes in scheduled passenger service is 30 years for the Twin Otter
and 25 years for all of the other models. On that basis, the FAA
projects that, in the absence of the commuter rule, 4 of these
airplanes would still be in scheduled passenger service after 15 years.
Finally, these airplanes' market values will fall over time because
the airplane ages because it takes an increasing level of expenditure
on maintenance and replacement to keep the airplane airworthy for
scheduled passenger service. Currently, the average market values for
the pre-SFAR 41C airplanes are $500,000 for the Twin Otter and the EMB-
110; $350,000 for the Beech 99; and $250,000 for the SA-226 and the
Beech 200.
In light of those factors as they relate to the pre-SFAR 41
airplanes, the FAA determines that a one-year compliance date would
generate a 60 percent loss in these airplanes' average market values
and this percentage loss is reduced by 2.5 percentage points per year
for four years (e.g., the second year would have a percentage loss of
57.5 percent, the third year will be 55 percent, etc.) and by 5
percentage points per year thereafter. Thus, the percentage loss of the
market value of these airplanes in 15 years will be 5 percent of that
airplane's market value. On that basis, the FAA determines that in 15
years these airplanes will incur a reduction in market value of $56,000
($20,000, present value).
SFAR 41 airplane models would also be affected by the part 121
performance criteria because these criteria are stricter than those in
part 135. However, the part 121 performance requirements are very
similar to the performance requirements in the ICAO Annex 8 flight
operating requirements--the flight operating requirements under which
these airplanes must fly in European scheduled service. As all of these
airplanes are used in European scheduled service, they can comply with
the part 121 performance requirements, but at a potential payload loss.
There are some combinations of temperature, airport elevation (pressure
altitude) and airport runway length that would require SFAR 41C
airplanes either: (1) To unload one, two, or even three passengers from
the currently permitted part 135 gross take-off weight; or (2) to
operate out of airports with longer runway lengths in order to meet the
ICAO Annex 8 performance requirements. For example, the minimum runway
length for a Beech 1900-C airplane with a 16,600 lb. maximum takeoff
weight (its maximum certificated load) from a pressure altitude of
1,000 ft. (a typical Midwestern airport) at 13 degrees Centigrade
(standard day) would be 4,700 ft. under part 135 but would be 5,900 ft.
under ICAO Annex 8. From another perspective, in order for a Beech
1900-C to operate under ICAO Annex 8 from an airport with a 4,700 ft.
runway, the maximum allowable takeoff weight would be 14,900 lbs. in
comparison to the 16,600 lbs. allowable under part 135. One commenter
reports that these operating limitations may affect these SFAR 41
airplanes at as many as 65 airports at some point during the year.
Nevertheless, for most of the temperatures, airport elevations
(pressure altitude), runway lengths, and actual takeoff loads faced by
these airplanes, the part 121 performance requirements, ICAO Annex 8
rules, and the part 135 performance requirements would have the same
limiting effect on these airplanes' operations.
As a result, the FAA will allow SFAR 41 and predecessor category
airplanes 15 years to comply with the part 121 performance
requirements. With a 15-year time horizon, operators will be able to
organize their schedules (for example, departing high temperature
airports earlier in the morning), their airplane/airport pairings, etc.
such that the costs in 15 years will be minimal.
[[Page 65906]]
Finally, the commuter category airplanes have the performance
capability of meeting part 121 performance requirements. However, the
manufacturers will need to document these capabilities for the approved
flight manuals. This documentation will require about 20 hours of
flight time at a per hour cost of $1,500 (includes instrument
calibration, engineering analysis, ground personnel review, etc.) for a
total cost of $30,000 per type certificate. In addition, there will be
a one-time manufacturer's cost of $5,000 per type certificate to obtain
FAA approval for this flight manual revision. Thus, the one-time first-
year cost for commuter category airplanes will be $105,000.
Section 121.161(a)--Airplane Limitations: Type of Route. Section
121.161(a) requires that an adequate airport be within one hour flying
time at single engine cruising speed along all points of the designated
flight route. There is no similar requirement in part 135. This
requirement is not expected to affect scheduled operators in the lower
48 states. In the Regulatory Evaluation for the NPRM, the FAA had
estimated that 150 round-trip flights in Alaska would be affected
annually, with reroutings adding one-half hour to each round-trip, for
a total of 75 hours increased flying time. Applying an hourly variable
operating cost for Alaskan air carrier commuter category airplanes of
$500, the FAA had estimated that annual operating costs would increase
$37,500. The 15-year total costs would be $375,000 ($265,000, present
value). As no comments were made on the estimated costs of this
provision, the FAA affirms its previous calculations. However, carrying
them out for 15 years generates a cost of $570,000 ($346,000, present
value).
Section 121.191--Engine Out En Route Net Flight Data. Although the
FAA had not estimated a compliance cost for this provision in the
Regulatory Evaluation for the NPRM, three commenters report that these
data do not currently exist for 10-to-19-seat airplane models and there
is a cost to developing these data. Based on those comments, the FAA
determines that manufacturers' will incur a one-time first-year cost of
$1,900 per type certificated model, resulting in a one-time first-year
compliance cost of $24,700 for the 13 type-certificated airplanes.
Section 121.305(j)--Third Attitude Indicator. This section requires
that a third attitude indicator be retrofitted on all affected
airplanes (manufactured before March, 1997) within 15 years of the
rule's effective date. Any affected airplane manufactured after March,
1997, must have the device. This device is not required under part 135
or part 23.
In the Regulatory Evaluation for the NPRM, the FAA had estimated
that it would cost $16,000 for a retrofit that would add about 5 lbs.
of weight while the annual maintenance, inspection, and replacement
costs would be about 10 percent of the retrofitting costs. The FAA had
also estimated it would cost $8,000 for an installation on a newly-
manufactured airplane. The FAA had also determined that a third
attitude indicator is standard equipment on the Beech 1900-D. The
proposed rule had a 1-year compliance date. On that basis, the FAA had
estimated that the 10-year cost would be $19.2 million ($18.4 million,
present value).
The FAA estimates that the retrofitting cost will be $16,000 and
will add 15 lbs. of weight to the airplane. To eliminate the potential
for down time, operators will retrofit this device during one of the
airplane's 200-hour scheduled checks. On that basis, the FAA expects
that this device will be installed in half of the 58 SFAR 41C airplanes
in scheduled passenger service during the 13th year and in the
remaining half during the 14th year. On that basis, the FAA determines
that the 15-year compliance cost will be $319,000 ($116,000, present
value).
Section 121.308--Lavatory Fire Protection. This section requires
each lavatory to have a smoke detector system connected to either: (1)
a warning light in the flight deck; or (2) a warning light or an aural
warning in the passenger cabin that can be readily detected by a flight
attendant. Section 121.308(b) requires each lavatory to have a built-in
automatic fire extinguisher in each of its disposal receptacles. These
requirements are also found in section 25.854 but only for airplanes
type certificated after 1991. There are no such provisions in part 135
or part 23.
On that basis, the FAA estimates that for the 20-to-30-seat
airplanes, there will be a first-year compliance cost of $78,000 and an
annual cost in each succeeding year of $45,000 to $58,000. The 15-year
total cost will be $858,000 ($519,000, present value). In the
Regulatory Evaluation for the NPRM, the FAA had estimated a 10-year
total cost of $263,000 ($206,000, present value).
Section 121.310(l)--Flight Attendant Flashlight Holder. This
section requires an emergency flashlight holder be available to the
flight attendant. A flashlight holder is needed to keep the flashlight
available and within reach of the flight attendant seat. This provision
requires retrofitting within one year of the effective date of the
rule. The FAA had not estimated any compliance cost for the flashlight
holder in the Regulatory Evaluation for the NPRM. However, after
additional analysis, the FAA found that there will be a per airplane
cost of $50 for a retrofit and $25 for an installation on a newly-
manufactured airplane. It will increase the airplane's weight by 2 lbs.
In addition, there will be a one-time engineering design, development,
and FAA approval cost of $250 for each type certificated model. As
there are no flight attendants in 10-to-19-seat airplanes, no flight
attendant flashlight will be required and there will be no compliance
cost for those airplanes. For 20-to-30-seat airplanes, the first-year
cost will be $42,000 and the annual cost thereafter will be between
$2,000 and $6,000. The 15-year total cost will be $88,000 ($68,000,
present value).
Section 121.312(b)--Passenger Seat Cushion Fire Blocking Materials.
This section requires that 10-to-30-seat airplane seat cushions comply
with the fire protection standards in Section 25.853(b) within 15
years. The proposed rule had allowed a two-year compliance period with
an option for two additional years if there were demonstrated
compliance difficulties.
In the Regulatory Evaluation for the NPRM, the FAA had assumed that
this provision would affect only the 10-to-19-seat airplanes because
the 20-to-30-seat airplanes are type-certificated under part 25, which
requires fire-blocked seats for airplanes type-certificated after 1991.
As those airplanes are used in both part 121 and part 135 service, the
FAA believed that they have already been retrofitted and are being
manufactured with fire blocking cushions. As there were no comments to
the contrary, the FAA has retained that assumption.
In the Regulatory Evaluation for the NPRM for 10-to-19-seat
airplanes, the FAA had estimated that it would cost $20,000 for a
retrofit, $5,000 for installation on newly-manufactured airplanes, and
fire blocking would add 2 lbs. per seat cushion. In addition, the FAA
had believed that the incremental compliance costs from replacing a
fire-blocked cushion with another fire-blocked cushion (due to normal
wear and tear) would be only due to the difference in the costs of the
fire-blocking material, which was estimated to be $5,000. There would
be no incremental labor costs because it would take as long to replace
a fire-blocked cushion with a fire-blocked cushion as it would take to
replace a
[[Page 65907]]
non-fire-blocked cushion with a non-fire-blocked cushion. The FAA had
also estimated that 10 percent of the 10-to-19-seat airplanes have fire
blocked seats because they are offered as an option on currently
manufactured models. Further, the FAA had estimated that it would cost
$50,000 for engineering, developing, testing, and documenting the
results for FAA approval for those airplanes no longer in production.
Finally, allowing operators four years to comply means that they can
schedule this retrofitting to fit into the normal cushion reupholstery
schedule. Consequently, the existing cushions would not have been
prematurely replaced before they would have been replaced due to normal
wear and tear.
Based on information received from industry, the FAA estimates that
the average retrofitting cost (weighted by the number of each type of
airplane model in the existing fleet) will be $21,500 and the average
new-installation cost (weighted by the number of new airplanes
projected to be sold by each manufacturer) will be $4,875. The average
weight of 38 lbs. (for a 19 seat airplane) results in a yearly per
airplane fuel cost of $105. In addition, an industry source reports
that airplane operators normally reupholster their seat cushions every
four years. Further, the FAA estimates that there will be no
engineering costs for current commuter category airplanes because all
of the manufacturers offer the fire blocked seat cushions as an option
and the engineering and FAA-approval costs have already been incurred.
However, the FAA revises its engineering costs for each out-of-
production airplane model from $10,000 to $5,000 because there are a
sufficient number of fabrics that have been approved so that each
manufacturer will not have to completely reengineer its seats.
In response to the increase in time (from 4 years to 15 years) to
comply with the rule, the FAA assumes that no airplane that will be
withdrawn from scheduled-passenger service during those 15 years will
be retrofitted with fire-blocking-seat-cushion materials. Further, an
operator of an existing airplane that will be employed in scheduled
passenger service beyond the 15-year period will wait until the last
moment (13 to 14 years) before performing the retrofit. Based on
industry statements, commuter-category airplanes are being built with
the expectation of a 25-to-30-year lifespan. Also based on industry
statements, the initial cost (plus one or two cushion reupholsteries)
is less than or about the same as a retrofit 10 or fewer years in the
future. The FAA anticipates that beginning in 5 years, operators will
only purchase new airplanes that have factory-installed-fire-blocked
seat cushions. Over time, the compliance costs will increase because a
greater number of these airplanes will carry the extra 38 lbs. of
weight. On that basis, the annual compliance costs will begin at
$150,000 in the sixth year after the effective date and increase to
$1.25 million by the 13th year. The 15-year total will be $5.88 million
($2.55 million, present value).
Section 121.317(b)--Fasten Seat Belt Lighted Sign. This section
requires that there be a lighted ``fasten seat belt'' sign that can be
controlled by the pilot. In the Regulatory Evaluation of the Proposed
Rule, the FAA had not estimated any compliance costs because it was
believed that affected airplanes had these lighted signs. Based
primarily on information received from industry, the FAA estimates that
the total 15-year cost for the 2 lb. device will be $522,000 ($269,000,
present value).
Section 121.342--Pitot Heat Indication System. This section
requires all affected airplanes, within 4 years of the rule's effective
date, to have a pitot heat indication system that indicates to the
flight crew whether or not the pitot heating system is operating.
Section 23.1323 requires a pitot heat system for most commuter category
airplanes, but there are no requirements for a heat indication system.
In the Regulatory Evaluation for the NPRM, the FAA estimated a per
airplane cost of $500 for a retrofit and $250 for installation on a
newly-manufactured airplane. The FAA did not estimate a weight penalty
or costs for inspection, maintenance, and repair, but it had estimated
a one-time manufacturer cost of $10,000 for initial engineering design,
testing, and documentation for FAA approval. On that basis, the FAA had
estimated that the compliance cost during each of the first four years
would be $280,000 and $10,000 per year thereafter. The 10-year total
costs were estimated to be $1.184 million or $993,000, present value.
After additional analysis, the FAA is persuaded that its initial
cost estimates need revision. Based on its analysis of the technology
required to install these devices, the FAA determines that there is a
per airplane cost of $4,000 for a retrofit and $2,000 for installation
in a newly-manufactured airplane. However, the number of airplanes
expected to be sold by the manufacturer who reported this device is
standard equipment is subtracted from the expected number of newly-
manufactured airplanes that will need to install this device. In
addition, the associated equipment and wiring will add 5 lbs. to the
airplane. Finally, there will be a $10,000 one-time cost to engineer,
design, test, and obtain FAA approval for the manufacturer of each type
certificate.
On that basis, the annual costs in each of the first 4 years will
be between $515,000 and $535,000 and the annual costs in each year
thereafter will be between $17,000 and $23,000. The 15-year total costs
will be $2.29 million ($1.87 million, present value).
Section 121.349(c)--Distance Measuring Equipment. This section
requires at least one approved distance measuring equipment (DME) unit
within 15 months of the final rule publication date for operations
under VFR over routes not navigated by pilotage or for operations under
IFR or over-the-top. The FAA had estimated no compliance costs for this
provision and there were no comments on this provision. After
additional analysis, however, the FAA determines that some airplanes
are affected by this requirement.
Based on the 1994 AOPA Pilot General Aviation Aircraft Directory
and Avionics Directory and Buyer's Guide, the FAA estimates that the
average price of a 25 lb. DME for an airplane is $7,000 and it will
cost another $7,000 to retrofit for a total cost of $14,000. The FAA
General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity and Avionics Survey for 1993
reports that 3.1 percent of the turboprops in service (twenty-three 10-
to-19-seat airplanes and ten 20-to-30-seat airplanes) do not have this
device but that all newly-manufactured airplanes will have this device
installed. On that basis, the FAA estimates that the first-year-
compliance cost is $434,000 ($294,000 for 10-to-19-seat airplanes and
$140,000 for 20-to-30-seat airplanes) and the 15-year-compliance cost
is $452,000 of which $303,000 is for 10-to-19-seat airplanes and
$149,000 is for 20-to-30-seat airplanes ($418,000, present value of
which $281,000 is for 10-to-19-seat airplanes and $137,000 is for 20-
to-30-seat airplanes).
4. Maintenance
The FAA estimates that over the 15-year period, the total cost of
compliance for the relevant maintenance sections affected by the final
rule will amount to an estimated $18.18 million ($11.92 million,
present value). A discussion of the individual maintenance costs is
presented below.
Section 121.361 Applicability. The final rule requires all affected
commuter operators to have an airplane maintenance program that is
appropriate for part 121 operations. All part 135 commuters currently
operating
[[Page 65908]]
under a part 135 continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP)
will be required to revise and possibly upgrade their programs in
accordance with the new part 121 standards. Currently, commuter
operators of airplane type-certificated with a passenger seating
configuration of 10 seats or more operate under a CAMP as specified in
section 135.411(a)(2). Most differences among the respective part 135
operators' CAMP' arise from the varying complexity of the different
airplanes, not solely from the type of operation. Therefore, the only
new requirement will be to revise and possibly upgrade part 135
operators' existing CAMP's, not to develop entirely new maintenance
programs.
The FAA estimates the one-time total compliance cost of the
maintenance applicability section is $104,000. Of this total, $63,000
will be incurred by operators of 10-to-19-seat airplanes and $41,000
will be borne by operators of 20-to-30-seat airplanes. The FAA assumes,
based on information received from its technical personnel, that an
average of 80 hours will be required of each affected operator's
maintenance shop foreman to review an operators' CAMP to ensure
compliance with the final rule. Assuming a loaded hourly wage of $20.58
for a maintenance foreman, the one-time cost estimate for each operator
will be approximately $1,650 (80 x $20.58).
Section 121.377 Maintenance And Preventive Maintenance Personnel
Duty Time Limitations. The final rule will require all commuter
operators to adhere to the part 121 limitation of time that maintenance
and preventive maintenance personnel can be required to remain on duty.
Section 121.377 requires maintenance personnel to be relieved from duty
for a period of at least 24 consecutive hours during any 7 consecutive
days, or the equivalent thereof within any one calendar month.
Maintenance and preventive maintenance personnel employed by part 135
operators have no such duty time limitation.
The FAA maintained in the NPRM that simple adjustments in work
scheduling or duty requirements of maintenance personnel were on-going
costs of doing business which would not be affected by the commuter
rule. Furthermore, the FAA held that the existence of union work rules,
Department of Labor regulations and the generally accepted notion of a
``day of rest'' would be sufficient to limit the amount of time that
part 135 maintenance and preventive maintenance personnel remained on
duty. The FAA, therefore, did not estimate any incremental costs
associated with this section, and treated it as one not contributing to
the total maintenance costs.
For the final rule, in considering the unique operating environment
of Alaska, the FAA has determined that imposing the requirements of the
maintenance and preventive-maintenance-personnel-duty-time limitations
for part 121 operators onto part 135 operators will be a cost factor.
The cost for the Alaskan operators is $312,000 per year for all Alaskan
10-to-19-seat airplane operators. This cost estimate was provided by
the Alaskan Air Carriers Association (AACA) and adopted by the FAA for
this analysis. For the remaining operators, the annual cost is an
estimated 80 hours per year at $20.44 per hour for the maintenance
foreman to perform the additional scheduling necessary to comply with
the rule. The FAA estimates that a maintenance foreman will spend
approximately 80 additional hours per year to meet the part 121
standards. Thus, the cost for non-Alaskan 10-to-19-seat operators in
1996 will be 23 operators x $20.58 x 80 hours or $37,870. For 20-
to-30-seat seat operators, the cost in 1996 will be 25 operators x
$20.58 x 80 hours or $41,000. The calculations would be the same in
subsequent years.
Over the 15-year period, the total cost imposed due to the new
duty-time-limitation requirement will be approximately $6.02 million
($3.65 million, present value). Most of this cost, $4.68 million, falls
on Alaskan part 135 operators of 10-to-19-seat airplanes. This
disproportionate amount reflects the probable added labor requirements
of Alaskan operators owing to the uniqueness of the Alaskan operating
environment.
Section 121.380 Maintenance Recording Requirements. This section
provides for the preparation, maintenance, and retention of certain
records using the system specified in the certificate holder's manual.
It further specifies the length of time records must be retained and
the requirements for records to be transferred with the airplane at the
time the airplane is sold. Section 121.380a, Transfer Of Maintenance
Records, develops the transfer of records in more detail. It requires
the certificate holder to transfer certain maintenance records to the
purchaser, at the time of sale, in either plain language or coded form
which provides for the preservation and retrieval of information. The
section ensures that a new owner receives all records that are to be
maintained by an operator as required under section 121.380.
In the NPRM, the FAA maintained that because section 135.439 was
essentially identical to 121.380, there would be minimal new
recordkeeping requirements imposed on part 135 operators and thus,
assumed no incremental costs would result from changes to this section.
The FAA also maintained that there would be no incremental cost impact
resulting from changes to part 121.380a. Upon review of the proposal
and subsequent comments received, the FAA has determined that the
merging of the recordkeeping requirements of sections 121.380 and
135.439 brought on by the commuter rule will involve incremental
administrative costs. The FAA therefore, has revised its NPRM position
of no costs, and estimated the administrative costs for the new
requirements incorporated in the changes to sections 121.380, 121.380a
and 135.439.
The cost was derived from averaging the total recording cost for
Alaskan commuter airplanes as provided by the AACA and applied to the
total 10-to-19-seat airplane fleet. The AACA estimated the total first-
year cost for Alaska operators to be $156,000. This was divided by the
number of 10-to-19-seat airplanes in Alaska (44) for an average cost of
$3,545 per airplane. This was then multiplied by the total number of
airplanes in the 1996 U.S. fleet. In 1996, the number of airplanes will
be 629 (673-44), 44, and 277 for 10-to-19-seat non-Alaska airplanes,
10-to-19-seat Alaska airplanes, and 20-to-30-seat airplanes
respectively. For subsequent years, the additional reporting cost will
be $26,000 for the 10-to-19-seat airplanes in Alaska. The FAA divided
that cost by the number of Alaskan airplanes (44) and then multiplied
it by the total U.S. fleet. Thus, in 1997 the fleet count is 639 (683-
44) 10-to-19-seat non-Alaska airplanes and 307 20-to-30-seat airplanes.
The total costs for 1997 are $26,000 for Alaska, $377,590 ($26,000/
44 x 639) for 10-to-19-seat non-Alaska, and $181,409 ($26,000/44 x 307)
for 20-to-30-seat airplanes. The same procedure is used for the
remaining years. The total cost imposed on operators of part 135
airplanes due to the additional recordkeeping required to merge parts
121 and 135 maintenance recording requirements is approximately $11.5
million ($7.8 million, present value) for the 15-year period.
As a final point, this rule will impose costs on some part 121
operators by requiring them to maintain information on engine and
propeller time in service as specified in section 135.439/121.380.
[[Page 65909]]
The FAA concurs with a commenter's objection that for the few operators
of older, part 121 propeller-driven airplanes, this will necessitate a
substantial search-cost for historical records. In this instance the
costs will not be borne by part 135 operators who, for the most part,
utilize propeller-driven airplanes, but rather, by a few part 121
operators who do not utilize jet-driven airplanes. However, in the
final rule, the FAA will make this requirement prospective only; those
part 121 operators of propeller-driven airplanes will be required to
maintain information on engine and propeller time in service only from
the date of the first overhaul of the engine or propeller as
applicable. Thus, this new requirement should only impose negligible
costs on these part 121 operators.
5. Part 119
Part 119 is a new part that consolidates the certification and
operations specifications requirements for persons who operate under
parts 121 and 135. Most of these regulations are currently in SFAR 38-
2; therefore, moving them to part 119 would not impose any additional
cost. However, some sections currently under parts 121 and 135 would be
moved to part 119. The costs imposed on affected operators by those
sections are presented below. Over 15 years, the costs of these
provisions are estimated to be $3.36 million ($2.30 million, present
value).
Sections 119.33(c) and 121.163--Proving Tests. When an operator
changes the type of operation it conducts or purchases an airplane that
is new to a certain type of operation, that operator must undertake a
proving test. A proving test generally consists of a non-passenger
flight in which the operator proves that it is capable of safely
conducting that type of operation or airplane. Going from a part 135
operation to a part 121 operation would be a change in operation and be
subject to a proving test. Under the final rule, there would be two
costs associated with proving tests--initial and recurring. The initial
cost would be proving tests for upgrading the existing part 135 fleet
that would become part 121. The recurring costs would be for any future
operational or airplane changes that would normally require a proving
test (as required by the existing rule).
The current regulation prescribes 50 hours of flight for a part 121
(section 121.163(b)(1)) proving test. This is the number that part 135
operators switching to part 121 will be subject to. However, the
current rule also allows for deviations from the 50-hour requirement. A
sample of FAA records on proving tests shows that, since 1991, there
has been a wide range of hours actually flown for proving tests. This
is because the amount that the operator is allowed to deviate from the
prescribed number of hours is based on what that operator requests and
on what the FAA will allow. However, based on the above sample, the FAA
assumes for the purposes of this analysis that the average deviation
will be down to a total of 15 hours.
The FAA recognizes that some operators who currently operate under
a split certificate already have experience operating under part 121.
Also, some part 135 operators already voluntarily comply with part 121
requirements for much of their operation. To the extent practicable,
for these and possibly other operators, the FAA will not require a
proving flight. However, some operators who will have to make
significant changes to the operation as a result of the final rule will
have to have a proving flight. The FAA anticipates that 50 percent of
the estimated number of proving tests will not have to include a
proving flight. The only cost to these operators will be the
preparation and completion of the test for the dispatch system. For
this analysis, the FAA assumes three days preparation for the manager,
maintenance director, and secretary.
For those operators who must take the proving test, the cost will
be the same three days preparation plus the 15 hours of flight time.
The FAA estimates that the 15 hours of proving test flights will cost
the operator approximately $8,560 for a 20-to-30-seat airplane and
$7,000 for a 10-to-19-seat airplane. The difference in cost is due to
the flight attendant being on board in the 20-to-30-seat airplanes.
The FAA estimates that there will be 90 proving tests necessary in
1996 to bring the existing fleet up to part 121 standards (assuming a
proving test for each type of airplane for each part 135 carrier
affected by the final rule.) The cost to the 60 part 135 operators in
1996 to complete the initial 90 proving tests would be approximately
$393,660 ($367,900, present value). Of this cost, approximately
$128,300 would be incurred by operators with 20-to-30-seat airplanes
and $265,360 by operators with 10-to-19-seat airplanes.
The recurring costs would accrue over the next 15 years as affected
operators conduct part 121 proving tests instead of part 135 proving
tests. If the prescribed number of hours for part 135 and part 121
operators is 25 and 50 respectively, and the average deviation is 50
percent, then the difference in hours would be 13 [(50-25) x .5].
Also, the FAA found from the survey of its records that, on average,
operators conduct one proving test every four years, which equates to
approximately 3 tests over the 15-year period.
The average number of operators in any given year over the next 15
years is 68. Based on this, the FAA will conduct approximately 14 ((68
operators x 3 tests)/15 years) proving tests annually: 8 for 10-to-
19-seat airplanes and 6 for 20-to-30-seat airplanes. The FAA estimates
that the increased cost of a proving test per part 135 operator would
be $6,050 for a 20-to-30-seat airplane and $5,800 for a 10-to-19-seat
airplane. For all affected operators, the final rule will impose
approximately $82,700 annually in additional costs for proving tests.
Over the next 15 years, the total recurring cost of this provision
would be $1.24 million ($0.75 million, present value).
Sections 119.65, 119.67, 119.69, and 119.71--Directors of
Maintenance, Operations, and Safety; Chief Inspector; and Chief Pilot.
The existing requirements for establishing and the eligibility of
management personnel only apply to part 135 operators (excluding those
that use only one pilot) and supplemental and commercial part 121
operators. The final rule will expand the applicability of the
requirement for management positions to all part 121 operators as well.
However, the FAA contends that part 121 operators, by the very nature
and size of their operations, already have personnel in these positions
(or the equivalent of these positions). Thus, there will be no cost to
incorporate part 121 operators under these requirements.
There are three other potential cost areas for the management
positions required in the final rule. First, is the new recency of
experience for first time Directors of Operations and Maintenance.
Second, is the new Director of Safety position for both part 121 and
part 135 operators. Third is the Chief Inspector, which will be a new
position for those part 135 commuters who upgrade to part 121.
Recency of Experience. The final rule will impose new recency of
experience requirements for those Director of Maintenance and
Operations candidates who will have that title for the first time. In
addition to other requirements, these candidates will have to have
three years of experience (within their respective fields) within the
past six years to be eligible for a Director position. This will ensure
that those candidates who do not have any experience as a Director at
least have
[[Page 65910]]
recent on-the-job experience in their respective fields.
The potential cost of the recency of experience requirement is the
reduction at any given time in the number of first-time candidates
available for these positions. This is because some first-time
candidates may have to acquire additional years of experience if they
do not have it at the time that they are being considered for a
Director position. It is extremely difficult to project how many future
first-time Director candidates will be affected by the final rule.
However, this will have little if any effect on an operator's ability
to find potential applicants to fill a Director position. This is for
three reasons. First, the FAA contends that the number of potential
candidates who do not meet the recency of experience requirement both
now and in the future is small in relation to the total number of
potential applicants for a Director position. Second, the FAA contends
that the supply of existing personnel who would qualify for a Director
position, plus those who are already a Director, is sufficient to keep
wages from increasing as a result of the new qualification
requir
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
ements. Further, the new requirements are not substantive enough
to cause wages to increase. Third, operators can always request
authorization from the FAA to hire an applicant who has comparable
experience. For the initial upgrade to part 121, the FAA will approve
these authorizations to the extent practicable. Thus, the FAA contends
that the final rule will not impose a hardship on operators in having
enough potential qualified applicants to fill the Director positions.
Director of Safety. This is a new position for part 121 but the FAA
contends that this position will impose little if any additional cost
to operators. The rationale for this assessment is based on two
factors: (1) There are no eligibility requirements for the Director of
Safety so virtually anyone can be designated as such; and (2) most
operators already have a Director of Safety or the equivalent.
Chief Inspector. For existing part 135 commuter operators who will
now operate under part 121, the position of Chief Inspector will be
new. The FAA contends that this requirement will impose little if any
additional cost. Many part 135 operators already have personnel that
are the equivalent of a Chief Inspector. The operator may petition the
Administrator to combine positions or request authorization to appoint
someone who has comparable experience. For the initial upgrade to part
121, the FAA will consider these requests on a case-by-case basis.
On-Demand Operators Conducting Scheduled Operations. Under part
135, on-demand operators will be allowed to conduct up to four
scheduled operations a week and still remain an on-demand operator.
There is no such allowance in part 121. Thus, if a current on-demand
operator conducts even one scheduled passenger flight with a 10-to-30-
seat airplane, then that airplane must be upgraded to and the operation
flown under part 121. The FAA has identified 5 airplanes in the current
fleet with 10 to 19 seats that are used by on-demand operators in
scheduled service. To bring these airplanes up to the part 121
standards will cost approximately $1.73 million ($1.18 million, present
value). The components behind this estimate are provided below
(explanations of these costs components are provided in their
respective sections).
C. Benefits
The commuter segment of the U.S. airline industry is a vital and
growing component of the nation's air transportation system. Commuter
airplanes transport passengers between small communities and large
hubs, and they play a vital role in transporting passengers over short
distances, regardless of airport or community size. In many cases, they
are a community's only convenient link to the rest of the nation's air
transportation system.
Over the past 15 years, the size of the commuter industry has grown
considerably. In 1993, for example, enplanements for commuter carriers
grew by over 10 percent, far outpacing the one percent growth of
enplanements on larger carriers. Forecasts of commuter industry
activity give every indication that growth in this segment of the
airline industry will continue to be robust during the next 15 years.
Many commuter carriers operate in partnership with large air
carriers, providing transportation to and from hub locations that would
be unprofitable with larger airplanes. These partnerships frequently
operate within a seamless ticketing environment, in which the large
carrier issues a ticket that often includes a trip segment on a
commuter airplane. As these relationships between large carriers and
commuter airlines continue to grow, it will become more common for the
average long distance flyer to spend at least one flight segment on
commuter airplanes.
The combined effect of a continuing growth in the commuter industry
and the ever growing relationship between large carriers and their
commuter counterparts will progressively blur the distinction between
commuter carriers and larger air carriers. In other words, passengers
will no longer readily distinguish between one type of carrier and
another, but will simply view each component as a part of the nation's
air transportation system. It is imperative, therefore, that a uniform
level of safety be afforded the traveling public throughout the system.
Air carrier accidents, perhaps more than accidents in any other mode,
affect public confidence in air transportation.
What is the public value or benefit of air transportation? It would
be nearly impossible to calculate something that has been so widely
accepted in the American lifestyle. One figure that represents the very
least value the public places on traveling by air is the annual amount
the public spends on air transportation, or in other words, annual air
carrier revenues. In 1994, the FAA estimated that amount to be $88
billion. If public confidence wavers by only one percent, annual total
air carrier revenues would be reduced by $880 million, which is a
minimum dollar estimate of the cost that would be experienced by the
public in terms of being denied a fast, safe means of transportation.
Some studies have been done to measure the effect of change in
public confidence. In 1987, the FAA studied the impact of terrorist
acts on air travel on North Atlantic routes. The study investigated the
relationship between the amount of media attention given to a specific
terrorist act and reductions in air traffic. The study concluded that
there was a measurable, short-term, carrier-specific correlation
between the two. Following a well-publicized incident, ridership on the
carrier experiencing the incident dropped by as much as 50 percent for
a few months. In another instance, a major air carrier reported that
two catastrophic accidents in 1994 resulted in a half-year-revenue loss
to that carrier of $150 million. These examples relate to carriers
operating large airplanes, but they illustrate how the prevailing level
of public confidence can affect the public use of air transportation.
It is clear that the American public demands a high degree of
safety in air travel. This is manifested by the large amount of media
attention given to the rare accidents that do occur, by the short term
reductions in revenues carriers have experienced following accidents or
acts of terrorism, and by the pressure placed on the FAA as the
regulator of air safety to further reduce accident rates.
[[Page 65911]]
The FAA is confident that the final rule will further reduce air
carrier accidents. The final rule will require dozens of changes to the
way that smaller air carrier airplanes are built, maintained, and
operated--all aimed at eliminating or at the very least minimizing the
differences between small and large airplanes and the way they operate.
Many of these changes result in small, unmeasurable safety improvements
when examined in isolation, but taken together result in a measurable
difference. That measurable difference ultimately is to bring commuter
accident rates down to the very low level of that of the larger
carriers. That rate is nearing the point of rare, random events.
What follows is a quantified analysis of the potential benefits of
the final rule based on the assumption that it will reduce the number
of commuter airplane accidents and (possibly mitigate the severity of
those casualties in accidents that will occur). The analysis finds that
measurable potential benefits substantially exceed the cost of the
final rule, but the FAA believes that the larger but unquantifiable
benefit is continued public confidence in air transportation.
Safety Benefits From Preventing Accidents. The intent of the
Commuter Rule is to close, to the extent practicable, the accident rate
gap between airplanes with 10 to 30 seats currently operating under
part 135 and airplanes with 31 to 60 seats operating under part 121.
The smaller ``commuter-type'' part 121 airplanes were used for
comparison because their operations best resemble those of commuters
than do larger part 121 airplanes. If the accident rate gap were
completely closed, the FAA estimates that up to 67 accidents involving
airplanes with 10 to 30 seats could be prevented from 1996 to 2010.
This would generate a benefit of $588 million, with a present value of
$350 million.
Typically, the FAA estimates aviation safety benefits based on
rates of specific types of accidents that the rulemaking would prevent
in the future. For this rulemaking, however, the FAA used a more broad-
based accident rate. This approach was adopted because the scope of the
various components of the rule covers such a wide range, and many of
those components are interrelated.
To estimate the benefits of the rule, the FAA assembled a database
of applicable part 121 and part 135 accidents between 1985 and 1994
using National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident reports.
These accidents were categorized by the passenger seating configuration
of the airplanes involved--10 to 19, 20 to 30, and 31 to 60. The FAA
then divided the annual number of accidents by the annual number of
scheduled departures for each group to derive the annual accident
rates. After calculating the 10-year historical average accident rates,
the FAA took the difference in the accident rates between the part 135
airplanes and the part 121 airplanes. The difference in rates was then
multiplied by the projected annual number of scheduled part 135
departures of airplanes with 10 to 19 seats and 20 to 30 seats from
1996 to 2010. Each step of this estimation procedure is described in
detail below.
The Accident Database. The NTSB defines an accident as an
occurrence associated with the operation of an airplane which takes
place between the time any person boards the airplane with the
intention of flight and the time such that persons have disembarked,
and in which any person suffers death or serious injury or in which the
airplane receives substantial damage. The FAA looked at only those
accidents for which the final rule could have an effect. Accidents in
which the probable cause was undetermined, the result of turbulence, or
was related to the ground crew were not included in the database. The
FAA also excluded midair collisions, since the current airspace rules
(Mode C, TCAS, positively-controlled-airspace areas, etc.) would not be
affected by the final rule. Finally, the FAA excluded accidents
involving unscheduled and all-cargo operations.
Annual Accident Rate. Based on the annual number of accidents from
the database and the annual number of departures, the FAA estimated the
accident rates for 10-to-30-seat airplanes operating under part 135 and
31-to-60-seat airplanes operating under part 121. From 1986 to 1994,
the FAA found that part 135 airplanes with 10 to 19 seats were involved
in accidents at a rate of .32 accidents per 100,000 departures and
airplanes with 20 to 30 seats occurred at an average rate of .17
accidents per 100,000. Accidents involving part 121 airplanes with 31
to 60 seats had an average accident rate of .13 accidents per 100,000
departures.
The Average Cost of a Part 135 Accident. From the accident database
discussed above, the FAA found that the average part 135 accident
involving 10-to-19- and 20-to-30-seat airplanes cost $6.3 million and
$24.6 million, respectively.
Estimating Potential Benefits. To estimate the benefit of closing
the accident-rate gap between part 135 and part 121 airplanes, the FAA
took the difference in average accident rates for 10-to-30-seat part
135 airplanes and 31-to-60-seat part 121 airplanes and multiplied them
by the projected annual number of departures for 10-to-30-seat part 135
airplanes. This gives the projected annual number of accidents that the
final rule could prevent. The FAA estimates that, from 1996 to 2010, 67
accidents could be prevented. Multiplying the number of potential
accidents by the average cost of a part 135 accident ($6.3 million for
10-to-19-seat airplanes or $24.6 million for 20-to-30-seat airplanes)
results in total potential benefits of $588.2 million ($350 million,
present value).
The extent to which the accident rate gap closes will determine how
much of the $350 million in potential benefits is actually achieved.
Based on the scope of the final rule, the FAA anticipates a significant
closing of this gap.
D. Comparison of Costs and Benefits
Over the next 15 years, the Commuter Rule will impose total costs
of $117.80 million, with a present value of $75.19 million. Of the
total costs, $80.36 million will be for airplanes with 10 to 19 seats
and $37.44 million will be for airplanes with 20 to 30 seats.
The benefit of the Commuter Rule is its contribution to closing the
accident rate gap between part 121 and existing part 135 commuter
operators. The FAA estimates that closing this gap will prevent 67
accidents over the 15 year period for a total present value benefit of
$350 million. It is not certain how much of the accident-rate gap the
final rule will close. In view of this uncertainty, the FAA contends
that the final rule will be cost-beneficial because it will have to be
only 21 percent effective for costs to equal benefits. Given the broad
scope of the rule, the FAA anticipates that, at a minimum, the rule
will be this effective and more.
One additional observation needs to be made. The FAA considers the
Commuter Rule to be complementary to the Air Carrier Training Program
final rule and the Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations and Rest
Requirements NPRM. A common goal of these three rulemaking actions is
to prevent the 67 accidents that represent the accident-rate gap
between part 135 commuters and part 121 operators.
In terms of the accident-rate gap, the benefits of the Commuter
Rule are a part of this total benefit. However, it is not possible to
allocate that benefit among the three rulemaking actions because it is
difficult to determine which rulemaking action would prevent a given
accident. For example, individual accidents may be prevented by any one
[[Page 65912]]
or a combination of several factors such as:
Preventing the occurrence of a problem with an airplane in
the first place (Commuter rule);
Providing more or better crew training to properly respond
to the problem after it occurs (Air Carrier Training Program rule);
Providing a dispatcher to help identify a problem before
it becomes a potential accident (Commuter rule); and
Ensuring pilots are not over-worked and tired (The Rest
and Duty NPRM).
The Commuter Rule only addresses a portion of the necessary
requirements to close the accident-rate gap. If the $75 million present
value cost of this rule is combined with the $51 million in cost-
savings of the Flight and Duty NPRM, and the cost of Pilot Training,
$34 million, the total cost, $58 million ($34 -$51+$75), is still less
than the estimated $350 million benefit of eliminating the accident-
rate gap. These rules combined need only be 17 percent effective to be
cost-beneficial.
E. International Trade Impact Assessment
Overview. The final rule will have a minimal effect on
international trade. Although there are a number of across-the-border
commuter services between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, they represent
a small number of routes and airplanes. The only other concern with
regard to international trade is airplane sales. There is the potential
that increased equipment requirements and standards may limit the
ability of commuter airplanes manufactured for the U.S. market to be
resold to buyers in developing nations. Often, these countries do not
have extensive safety requirements and may prefer less sophisticated
airplanes.
International Routes. Most of the nation's 63 commuter airlines
operate almost exclusively on domestic routes, with only limited
international operations and no transoceanic routes. The majority of
these international operations are across-the-border services between
cities in the United States and locations in Canada and Mexico. There
are relatively few carriers engaging in this kind of commuter service,
with only a limited number of flights. Most of these services are
between points in the border states, such as California, Arizona,
Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington, and New York, flying to Mexican
and Canadian cities. Although the final rule may require some foreign
carriers to comply with its requirements, the primary effect will still
be borne by the domestic air carrier market with a minimal affect on
international trade.
Airplane Sales. Commuter airplanes are sold on a worldwide basis,
and this creates the potential for international trade impacts. The
final rule could affect the competitiveness of airplanes made for the
U.S. market that are resold internationally. Under the final rule,
commuter airplanes made for the American market would include new
equipment and upgrades necessary to meet expanded safety requirements.
These improvements will increase the cost and maintenance requirements
for the airplane and could negatively affect their sales potential in
foreign markets, particularly to customers in developing nations.
Many small air carriers in the developing world fly under
significantly lower safety requirements than are required in the United
States. Operators are generally not motivated to purchase airplanes
that exceed their countries' minimum requirements. Further, these
operators sometimes lack the facilities, equipment, and expertise that
are necessary to keep sophisticated systems operational. Therefore,
when purchasing either new or second-hand airplanes, operators tend to
focus on airplanes that rely on a minimum of complex systems and
equipment and that meet their basic requirements at the lowest cost.
Although sales of smaller airplanes to the developing countries
represent an important component of the market, the largest market by
far is in North America. In this case, since the airplanes will have to
operate under the same standards as before their resale, there would be
no impact. According to recent estimates, the worldwide market for
commuter airplanes is estimated to be almost $20 billion over the next
15 years, with a projected 59 percent of those sales occurring in North
America. Sales to Europe account for approximately 20 percent of the
total sales.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Determination Summary
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a final rule will have ``a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' The definitions of small entities and guidance material for
making determinations required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 are contained in the Federal Register [47 FR 32825, July 29,
1982]. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 2100.14A outlines
FAA's procedures and criteria for implementing the RFA. With respect to
the final rule, a ``small entity'' is defined as a commuter operator
(with 10 to 30 seats) that owns, but does not necessarily operate nine
or fewer airplanes. A ``significant economic impact on a small entity''
is defined as an annualized net compliance cost to a small scheduled
commuter operator that is equal to or greater than $67,000 (1994
dollars). The entire fleet of a small scheduled commuter operator has
at least one airplane of seating capacity of 60 or fewer seats. The
annualized net compliance cost to a small operator whose entire fleet
has a seating capacity of over 60 seats is $119,900 (1994 dollars). A
substantial number of small entities is defined as a number that is 11
or more and that is more than one-third of small commuter operators
subject to the final rule.
The FAA is requiring certain commuter operators that now conduct
operations under part 135 to conduct those operations under part 121.
The commuter operators that will be affected are those conducting
scheduled passenger-carrying operations in airplanes that have a
passenger-seating configuration of 10 to 30 seats and those conducting
scheduled passenger-carrying operations in turbojets regardless of
seating configuration. The rule will revise the requirements concerning
operating certificates and operations specifications. The rule will
also require certain management officials for all operators under parts
121 and 135. The rule will increase safety in scheduled passenger-
carrying operations and clarify, update, and consolidate the
certification and operations requirements for persons who transport
persons or property by air for compensation or hire.
The total present value cost to small entities with 10-to-19-seat
airplanes is $16.7 million. The section on operations represents $10.1
million or 64 percent of the total. The section on maintenance
represents $4.0 million or 24 percent of the total. The total present
value cost to small entities with 20-to-30-seat airplanes is $4.0
million. The section on operations represents $2.9 million or 73
percent of the total. The section on part 119 represents $416,000 or
10.4 percent of the total.
This determination shows that for an operator with only 10-to-19-
seat airplanes, the average annualized cost will be $61,900 and for an
operator with 20-to-30-seat airplanes, the average annualized cost will
be $35,600. Given the threshold annualized cost of $67,000
[[Page 65913]]
for a small commuter operator (with 60 or fewer seats), the FAA
estimates that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. A complete copy of
the Regulatory Flexibility Determination is in the public docket.
Federalism Implications
The regulations do 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
various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order
12612, it is determined that such a regulation does not have federalism
implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements associated with this rule
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget, until
December 1998, in accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 under OMB No.
2120-0593, TITLE: Commuter Operations and General Certification and
Operations Requirements.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth under the heading ``Regulatory
Analysis,'' the FAA has determined that this regulation: (1) Is a
significant rule under Executive Order 12866; and (2) is a significant
rule under Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). Also, for the reasons
stated under the headings ``Trade Impact Statement'' and ``Regulatory
Flexibility Determination,'' the FAA certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A copy of the full regulatory evaluation is filed in the
docket and may also be obtained by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 119
Administrative practice and procedures, Air carriers, Air taxis,
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Commuter operations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 125
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 127
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 135
Aircraft, Airplane, Airworthiness, Air transportation.
IX. The Amendments
In consideration of the foregoing and under the authority of 49
U.S.C. 44702, the Federal Aviation Administration amends the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR parts 91, 119, 121, 125, 127, and 135) as
follows:
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
1. The authority citation for part 91 is changed to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722,
46306, 46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-
47531; Articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). 902; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).
2. Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 50-2 is amended by
removing the words ``part 135'' from paragraph (c)(2) of section 3 and
by revising section 6 to read as follows:
SFAR No. 50-2--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon
National Park, AZ
* * * * *
Sec. 6 Commercial sightseeing flights. (a) Non-stop sightseeing
flights that begin and end at the same airport, are conducted within
a 25-statute-mile radius of that airport, and operate in or through
the Special Flight Rules Area during any portion of the flight are
governed by the provisions of SFAR 38-2 of part 119, part 121, and
135 of this chapter, as applicable.
(b) No person holding or required to hold an air carrier
certificate or an operating certificate under SFAR 38-2 or part 119
of this chapter may operate an aircraft having a passenger-seat
configuration of 30 seats or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat,
and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, in the Special
Flight Rules Area except as authorized by operations specifications
issued under that part.
* * * * *
3. Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 71 is amended by
revising section 1 and the introductory text of section 7 to read as
follows:
SFAR No. 71--Special Operating Rules for Air Tour Operators in The
State of Hawaii
Section 1. Applicability. This Special Federal Aviation
Regulation prescribes operating rules for airplane and helicopter
visual flight rules air tour flights conducted in the State of
Hawaii under 14 CFR parts 91, 121, and 135. This rule does not apply
to:
(a) Operations conducted under 14 CFR part 121 in airplanes with
a passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats or a payload
capacity of more than 7,500 pounds.
(b) Flights conducted in gliders or hot air balloons.
* * * * *
Section 7. Passenger briefing. Before takeoff, each PIC of an
air tour flight of Hawaii with a flight segment beyond the ocean
shore of any island shall ensure that each passenger has been
briefed on the following, in addition to requirements set forth in
14 CFR 91.107, 121.571, or 135.117:
* * * * *
4. The heading of subchapter G is revised to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER G--AIR CARRIERS AND OPERATORS FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE:
CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS
5. A new part 119 is added to 14 CFR chapter I, subchapter G, to
read as follows:
PART 119--CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
119.1 Applicability.
119.2 Compliance with 14 CFR part 119 or SFAR 38-2 of 14 CFR part
121.
119.3 Definitions.
119.5 Certifications, authorizations, and prohibitions.
119.7 Operations specifications.
119.9 Use of business names.
Subpart B--Applicability of Operating Requirements to Different Kinds
of Operations Under Parts 121, 125, and 135 of This Chapter
119.21 Direct air carriers and commercial operators engaged in
intrastate common carriage with airplanes.
119.23 Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo
operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not
involved.
119.25 Rotorcraft operations: Direct air carriers and commercial
operators.
Subpart C--Certification, Operations Specifications, and Certain Other
Requirements for Operations Conducted Under Part 121 or Part 135 of
this Chapter
119.31 Applicability.
119.33 General requirements.
119.35 Certificate application.
119.37 Contents of an Air Carrier Certificate or Operating
Certificate.
119.39 Issuing or denying a certificate.
119.41 Amending a certificate.
[[Page 65914]]
119.43 Certificate holder's duty to maintain operations
specifications.
119.45 [Reserved]
119.47 Maintaining a principal base of operations, main operations
base, and main maintenance base; change of address.
119.49 Contents of operations specifications.
119.51 Amending operations specifications.
119.53 Wet leasing of aircraft and other arrangements for
transportation by air.
119.55 Obtaining deviation authority to perform operations under a
U.S. military contract.
119.57 Obtaining deviation authority to perform an emergency
operation.
119.58 Emergencies requiring immediate decision and action.
119.59 Conducting tests and inspections.
119.61 Duration and surrender of certificate and operations
specifications.
119.63 Recency of operation.
119.65 Management personnel required for operations conducted under
part 121 of this chapter.
119.67 Management personnel: Qualifications for operations
conducted under part 121 of this chapter.
119.69 Management personnel required for operations conducted under
part 135 of this chapter.
119.71 Management personnel: Qualifications for operations
conducted under part 135 of this chapter.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113,
44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906,
44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 119.1 Applicability.
(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to
operate civil aircraft--
(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air
commerce; or
(2) When common carriage is not involved, in operations of U.S.-
registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more
passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more.
(b) This part prescribes--
(1) The types of air operator certificates issued by the Federal
Aviation Administration, including air carrier certificates and
operating certificates;
(2) The certification requirements an operator must meet in order
to obtain and hold a certificate authorizing operations under part 121,
125, or 135 of this chapter and operations specifications for each kind
of operation to be conducted and each class and size of aircraft to be
operated under part 121 or 135 of this chapter;
(3) The requirements an operator must meet to conduct operations
under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter and in operating each class
and size of aircraft authorized in its operations specifications;
(4) Requirements affecting wet leasing of aircraft and other
arrangements for transportation by air;
(5) Requirements for obtaining deviation authority to perform
operations under a military contract and obtaining deviation authority
to perform an emergency operation; and
(6) Requirements for management personnel for operations conducted
under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
(c) Persons subject to this part must comply with the other
requirements of this chapter, except where those requirements are
modified by or where additional requirements are imposed by part 119,
121, 125, or 135 of this chapter.
(d) This part does not govern operations conducted under part 129,
133, 137, or 139 of this chapter.
(e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved
conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20
seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload
capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to--
(1) Student instruction;
(2) Nonstop sightseeing flights conducted with aircraft having a
passenger seat configuration of 30 or fewer, excluding each crewmember
seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, that begin and
end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile
radius of that airport; however, for nonstop sightseeing flights for
compensation or hire conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon
National Park, Arizona, the requirements of SFAR 50-2 of this part and
SFAR 38-2 of 14 CFR part 121 or 14 CFR part 119, as applicable, apply;
(3) Ferry or training flights;
(4) Aerial work operations, including--
(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing;
(ii) Banner towing;
(iii) Aerial photography or survey;
(iv) Fire fighting;
(v) Helicopter operations in construction or repair work (but it
does apply to transportation to and from the site of operations); and
(vi) Powerline or pipeline patrol;
(5) Sightseeing flights conducted in hot air balloons;
(6) Nonstop flights conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of
the airport of takeoff carrying persons for the purpose of intentional
parachute jumps;
(7) Helicopter flights conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of
the airport of takeoff if--
(i) Not more than two passengers are carried in the helicopter in
addition to the required flightcrew;
(ii) Each flight is made under day VFR conditions;
(iii) The helicopter used is certificated in the standard category
and complies with the 100-hour inspection requirements of part 91 of
this chapter;
(iv) The operator notifies the FAA Flight Standards District Office
responsible for the geographic area concerned at least 72 hours before
each flight and furnishes any essential information that the office
requests;
(v) The number of flights does not exceed a total of six in any
calendar year;
(vi) Each flight has been approved by the Administrator; and
(vii) Cargo is not carried in or on the helicopter;
(8) Operations conducted under part 133 of this chapter or 375 of
this title;
(9) Emergency mail service conducted under 49 U.S.C. 41906; or
(10) Operations conducted under the provisions of Sec. 91.321 of
this chapter.
Sec. 119.2 Compliance with 14 CFR part 119 or SFAR 38-2 of 14 CFR part
121.
(a) Each certificate holder that before January 19, 1996 was issued
an air carrier certificate or operating certificate and operations
specifications under the requirements of part 121, part 135, or SFAR
38-2 of part 121 of this chapter shall continue to comply with SFAR 38-
2 of 14 CFR part 121 until March 20, 1997 or until the date on which
the certificate holder is issued operations specifications in
accordance with part 119, whichever occurs first. If a certificate
holder is issued operation specifications in accordance with part 119
before March 20, 1997 then, notwithstanding all provisions in SFAR 38-2
of 14 CFR part 121, such certificate holder shall comply with the
provisions of part 119.
(b) Each person who on or after January 19, 1996 applies for or
obtains an initial air carrier certificate or operating certificate and
operations specifications to conduct operations under part 121 or 135
of this chapter shall comply with this part notwithstanding all
provisions of SFAR 38-2 of 14 CFR part 121.
Sec. 119.3 Definitions.
For the purpose of subchapter G of this chapter, the term--
All-cargo operation means any operation for compensation or hire
that is other than a passenger-carrying
[[Page 65915]]
operation or, if passengers are carried, they are only those specified
in Secs. 121.583(a) or 135.85 of this chapter.
Certificate-holding district office means the Flight Standards
District Office that has responsibility for administering the
certificate and is charged with the overall inspection of the
certificate holder's operations.
Commuter operation means any scheduled operation conducted by any
person operating one of the following types of aircraft with a
frequency of operations of at least five round trips per week or at
least one route between two or more points according to the published
flight schedules:
(1) Airplanes, other than turbojet powered airplanes, having a
maximum passenger-seat configuration of 9 seats or less, excluding each
crewmember seat, and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or
less; or
(2) Rotorcraft.
Direct air carrier means a person who provides or offers to provide
air transportation and who has control over the operational functions
performed in providing that transportation.
Domestic operation means any scheduled operation conducted by any
person operating any airplane described in paragraph (1) of this
definition at locations described in paragraph (2) of this definition:
(1) Airplanes:
(i) Turbojet-powered airplanes;
(ii) Airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than 9
passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat; or
(iii) Airplanes having a payload capacity of more than 7,500
pounds.
(2) Locations:
(i) Between any points within the 48 contiguous States of the
United States or the District of Columbia; or
(ii) Operations solely within the 48 contiguous States of the
United States or the District of Columbia; or
(iii) Operations entirely within any State, territory, or
possession of the United States; or
(iv) When specifically authorized by the Administrator, operations
between any point within the 48 contiguous States of the United States
or the District of Columbia and any specifically authorized point
located outside the 48 contiguous States of the United States or the
District of Columbia.
Empty weight means the weight of the airframe, engines, propellers,
rotors, and fixed equipment. Empty weight excludes the weight of the
crew and payload, but includes the weight of all fixed ballast,
unusable fuel supply, undrainable oil, total quantity of engine
coolant, and total quantity of hydraulic fluid.
Flag operation means any scheduled operation conducted by any
person operating any airplane described in paragraph (1) of this
definition at the locations described in paragraph (2) of this
definition:
(1) Airplanes:
(i) Turbojet-powered airplanes;
(ii) Airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than 9
passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat; or
(iii) Airplanes having a payload capacity of more than 7,500
pounds.
(2) Locations:
(i) Between any point within the State of Alaska or the State of
Hawaii or any territory or possession of the United States and any
point outside the State of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any
territory or possession of the United States, respectively; or
(ii) Between any point within the 48 contiguous States of the
United States or the District of Columbia and any point outside the 48
contiguous States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
(iii) Between any point outside the U.S. and another point outside
the U.S.
Justifiable aircraft equipment means any equipment necessary for
the operation of the aircraft. It does not include equipment or ballast
specifically installed, permanently or otherwise, for the purpose of
altering the empty weight of an aircraft to meet the maximum payload
capacity.
Kind of operation means one of the various operations a certificate
holder is authorized to conduct, as specified in its operations
specifications, i.e., domestic, flag, supplemental, commuter, or on-
demand operations.
Maximum payload capacity means:
(1) For an aircraft for which a maximum zero fuel weight is
prescribed in FAA technical specifications, the maximum zero fuel
weight, less empty weight, less all justifiable aircraft equipment, and
less the operating load (consisting of minimum flightcrew, foods and
beverages, and supplies and equipment related to foods and beverages,
but not including disposable fuel or oil).
(2) For all other aircraft, the maximum certificated takeoff weight
of an aircraft, less the empty weight, less all justifiable aircraft
equipment, and less the operating load (consisting of minimum fuel
load, oil, and flightcrew). The allowance for the weight of the crew,
oil, and fuel is as follows:
(i) Crew--for each crewmember required by the Federal Aviation
Regulations--
(A) For male flight crewmembers--180 pounds.
(B) For female flight crewmembers--140 pounds.
(C) For male flight attendants--180 pounds.
(D) For female flight attendants--130 pounds.
(E) For flight attendants not identified by gender--140 pounds.
(ii) Oil--350 pounds or the oil capacity as specified on the Type
Certificate Data Sheet.
(iii) Fuel--the minimum weight of fuel required by the applicable
Federal Aviation Regulations for a flight between domestic points 174
nautical miles apart under VFR weather conditions that does not involve
extended overwater operations.
Maximum zero fuel weight means the maximum permissible weight of an
aircraft with no disposable fuel or oil. The zero fuel weight figure
may be found in either the aircraft type certificate data sheet, the
approved Aircraft Flight Manual, or both.
Noncommon carriage means an aircraft operation for compensation or
hire that does not involve a holding out to others.
On-demand operation means any operation for compensation or hire
that is one of the following:
(1) Passenger-carrying operations in which the departure time,
departure location, and arrival location are specifically negotiated
with the customer or the customer's representative that are any of the
following types of operations:
(i) Common carriage operations conducted with airplanes, including
turbojet-powered airplanes, having a passenger-seat configuration of 30
seats or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity
of 7,500 pounds or less, except that operations using a specific
airplane that is also used in domestic or flag operations and that is
so listed in the operations specifications as required by
Sec. 119.49(a)(4) for those operations are considered supplemental
operations;
(ii) Noncommon or private carriage operations conducted with
airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of less than 20 seats,
excluding each crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of less than
6,000 pounds; or
(iii) Any rotorcraft operation.
(2) Scheduled passenger-carrying operations conducted with one of
the following types of aircraft with a frequency of operations of less
than five round trips per week on at least one route between two or
more points according to the published flight schedules:
(i) Airplanes, other than turbojet powered airplanes, having a
maximum
[[Page 65916]]
passenger-seat configuration of 9 seats or less, excluding each
crewmember seat, and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or
less; or
(ii) Rotorcraft.
(3) All-cargo operations conducted with airplanes having a payload
capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, or with rotorcraft.
Passenger-carrying operation means any aircraft operation carrying
any person, unless the only persons on the aircraft are those
identified in Secs. 121.583(a) or 135.85 of this chapter, as
applicable. An aircraft used in a passenger-carrying operation may also
carry cargo or mail in addition to passengers.
Principal base of operations means the primary operating location
of a certificate holder as established by the certificate holder.
Provisional airport means an airport approved by the Administrator
for use by a certificate holder for the purpose of providing service to
a community when the regular airport used by the certificate holder is
not available.
Regular airport means an airport used by a certificate holder in
scheduled operations and listed in its operations specifications.
Scheduled operation means any common carriage passenger-carrying
operation for compensation or hire conducted by an air carrier or
commercial operator for which the certificate holder or its
representative offers in advance the departure location, departure
time, and arrival location. It does not include any operation that is a
charter operation for which the certificate holder or its
representative offers in advance the departure location, departure
time, and arrival location. It does not include any operation that is a
charter operation.
Supplemental operation means any common carriage operation for
compensation or hire conducted with any airplane described in paragraph
(1) of this definition that is a type of operation described in
paragraph (2) of this definition:
(1) Airplanes:
(i) Airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than 30
seats, excluding each crewmember seat;
(ii) Airplanes having a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds;
or
(iii) Each airplane having a passenger-seat configuration of more
than 9 seats and less than 31 seats, excluding each crewmember seat and
any turbojet powered airplane, that is also used in domestic or flag
operations and that is so listed in the operations specifications as
required by Sec. 119.49(a)(4) for those operations.
(2) Types of operation:
(i) Operations for which the departure time, departure location,
and arrival location are specifically negotiated with the customer or
the customer's representative; or
(ii) All-cargo operations.
Wet lease means any leasing arrangement whereby a person agrees to
provide an entire aircraft and at least one crewmember. A wet lease
does not include a code-sharing arrangement.
When common carriage is not involved or operations not involving
common carriage means any of the following:
(1) Noncommon carriage.
(2) Operations in which persons or cargo are transported without
compensation or hire.
(3) Operations not involving the transportation of persons or
cargo.
(4) Private carriage.
Sec. 119.5 Certifications, authorizations, and prohibitions.
(a) A person authorized by the Administrator to conduct operations
as a direct air carrier will be issued an Air Carrier Certificate.
(b) A person who is not authorized to conduct direct air carrier
operations, but who is authorized by the Administrator to conduct
operations as a U.S. commercial operator, will be issued an Operating
Certificate.
(c) A person who is not authorized to conduct direct air carrier
operations, but who is authorized by the Administrator to conduct
operations when common carriage is not involved as an operator of U.S.-
registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more
passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, will
be issued an Operating Certificate.
(d) A person authorized to engage in common carriage under part 121
or part 135 of this chapter, or both, shall be issued only one
certificate authorizing such common carriage, regardless of the kind of
operation or the class or size of aircraft to be operated.
(e) A person authorized to engage in noncommon or private carriage
under part 125 or part 135 of this chapter, or both, shall be issued
only one certificate authorizing such carriage, regardless of the kind
of operation or the class or size of aircraft to be operated.
(f) A person conducting operations under more than one paragraph of
Secs. 119.21, 119.23, or 119.25 shall conduct those operations in
compliance with--
(1) The requirements specified in each paragraph of those sections
for the kind of operation conducted under that paragraph; and
(2) The appropriate authorizations, limitations, and procedures
specified in the operations specifications for each kind of operation.
(g) No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a
commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate
certificate and appropriate operations specifications. No person may
operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator in
violation of any deviation or exemption authority, if issued to that
person or that person's representative.
(h) A person holding an Operating Certificate authorizing noncommon
or private carriage operations shall not conduct any operations in
common carriage. A person holding an Air Carrier Certificate or
Operating Certificate authorizing common carriage operations shall not
conduct any operations in noncommon carriage.
(i) No person may operate as a direct air carrier without holding
appropriate economic authority from the Department of Transportation.
(j) A certificate holder under this part may not operate aircraft
under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter in a geographical area
unless its operations specifications specifically authorize the
certificate holder to operate in that area.
Sec. 119.7 Operations specifications.
(a) Each certificate holder's operations specifications must
contain--
(1) The authorizations, limitations, and certain procedures under
which each kind of operation, if applicable, is to be conducted; and
(2) Certain other procedures under which each class and size of
aircraft is to be operated.
(b) Except for operations specifications paragraphs identifying
authorized kinds of operations, operations specifications are not a
part of a certificate.
Sec. 119.9 Use of business names.
(a) A certificate holder under this part may not operate an
aircraft under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter using a business
name other than a business name appearing in the certificate holder's
operations specifications.
(b) Unless otherwise authorized by the Assistant Administrator for
Civil Aviation Security, no person may operate an aircraft under part
121 or part 135 of this chapter unless the name of the certificate
holder who is operating the aircraft is legibly displayed on the
aircraft and is clearly visible and readable from the outside of the
aircraft to a person standing on the ground at any time except during
flight time. The means of displaying the name on the
[[Page 65917]]
aircraft and its readability must be acceptable to the Administrator.
Subpart B--Applicability of Operating Requirements to Different
Kinds of Operations Under Part 121, 125, and 135 of This Chapter
Sec. 119.21 Direct air carriers and commercial operators engaged in
intrastate common carriage with airplanes.
(a) Each person who conducts operations as a direct air carrier or
as a commercial operator engaged in intrastate common carriage of
persons or property for compensation or hire in air commerce, shall
comply with the certification and operations specifications
requirements in subpart C of this part, and shall conduct its:
(1) Domestic operations in accordance with the applicable
requirements of part 121 of this chapter, and shall be issued
operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those
requirements. However, based on a showing of safety in air commerce,
the Administrator may permit persons who conduct domestic operations
between any point located within Alaska's Aleutian Islands chain and
any point in the State of Alaska to comply with the requirements
applicable to flag operations contained in subpart U of part 121 of
this chapter.
(2) Flag operations in accordance with the applicable requirements
of part 121 of this chapter, and shall be issued operations
specifications for those operations in accordance with those
requirements.
(3) Supplemental operations in accordance with the applicable
requirements of part 121 of this chapter, and shall be issued
operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those
requirements. However, based on a determination of safety in air
commerce, the Administrator may authorize or require the following
operations to be conducted under paragraph (a) (1) or (2) of this
section:
(i) Passenger-carrying operations which are conducted between
points that are also served by the certificate holder's domestic or
flag operations.
(ii) All-cargo operations which are conducted regularly and
frequently between the same two points.
(4) Commuter operations in accordance with the applicable
requirements of part 135 of this chapter, and shall be issued
operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those
requirements.
(5) On-demand operations in accordance with the applicable
requirements of part 135 of this chapter, and shall be issued
operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those
requirements.
(b) Persons who are subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)(4)
of this section may conduct those operations in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, provided
they obtain authorization from the Administrator.
(c) Persons who are subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)(5)
of this section may conduct those operations in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, provided they obtain
authorization from the Administrator.
Sec. 119.23 Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo
operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not
involved.
(a) Each person who conducts operations when common carriage is not
involved with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20
seats or more, excluding each crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of
6,000 pounds or more, shall, unless deviation authority is issued--
(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications
requirements of part 125 of this chapter;
(2) Conduct its operations with those airplanes in accordance with
the requirements of part 125 of this chapter; and
(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those
requirements.
(b) Each person who conducts noncommon or private carriage
operations for compensation or hire with airplanes having a passenger-
seat configuration of less than 20 seats, excluding each crewmember
seat, and a payload capacity of less than 6,000 pounds shall--
(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications
requirements in subpart C of this part;
(2) Conduct those operations in accordance with the requirements of
part 135 of this chapter, except for those requirements applicable only
to commuter operations; and
(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those
requirements.
Sec. 119.25 Rotorcraft operations: Direct air carriers and commercial
operators.
Each person who conducts rotorcraft operations for compensation or
hire must comply with the certification and operations specifications
requirements of Subpart C of this part, and shall conduct its:
(a) Commuter operations in accordance with the applicable
requirements of part 135 of this chapter, and shall be issued
operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those
requirements.
(b) On-demand operations in accordance with the applicable
requirements of part 135 of this chapter, and shall be issued
operations specifications for those operations in accordance with those
requirements.
Subpart C--Certification, Operations Specifications, and Certain
Other Requirements for Operations Conducted Under Part 121 or Part
135 of This Chapter
Sec. 119.31 Applicability.
This subpart sets out certification requirements and prescribes the
content of operations specifications and certain other requirements for
operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
Sec. 119.33 General requirements.
(a) A person may not operate as a direct air carrier unless that
person--
(1) Is a citizen of the United States;
(2) Obtains an Air Carrier Certificate; and
(3) Obtains operations specifications that prescribe the
authorizations, limitations, and procedures under which each kind of
operation must be conducted.
(b) A person other than a direct air carrier may not conduct any
commercial passenger or cargo aircraft operation for compensation or
hire under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter unless that person--
(1) Is a citizen of the United States;
(2) Obtains an Operating Certificate; and
(3) Obtains operations specifications that prescribe the
authorizations, limitations, and procedures under which each kind of
operation must be conducted.
(c) Each applicant for a certificate under this part shall conduct
proving tests as authorized by the Administrator during the application
process for authority to conduct operations under part 121 or part 135
of this chapter. All proving tests must be conducted in a manner
acceptable to the Administrator. All proving tests must be conducted
under the appropriate operating and maintenance requirements of part
121 or 135 of this chapter that would apply if the applicant were fully
certificated. The Administrator will issue a letter of authorization to
each person stating the various authorities under which the proving
tests shall be conducted.
Sec. 119.35 Certificate application.
(a) A person applying to the Administrator for an Air Carrier
[[Page 65918]]
Certificate or Operating Certificate under this part (applicant) must
submit an application--
(1) In a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator; and
(2) Containing any information the Administrator requires the
applicant to submit.
(b) Each applicant must submit the application to the Administrator
at least 90 days before the date of intended operation.
(c) Each applicant for the original issue of an operating
certificate for the purpose of conducting intrastate common carriage
operations under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter must submit an
application in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator to the
Flight Standards District Office in whose area the applicant proposes
to establish or has established his or her principal operations base of
operations.
(d) Each application submitted under paragraph (c) of this section
must contain a signed statement showing the following:
(1) For corporate applicants:
(i) The name and address of each stockholder who owns 5 percent or
more of the total voting stock of the corporation, and if that
stockholder is not the sole beneficial owner of the stock, the name and
address of each beneficial owner. An individual is considered to own
the stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for his or her spouse,
children, grandchildren, or parents.
(ii) The name and address of each director and each officer and
each person employed or who will be employed in a management position
described in Secs. 119.65 and 119.69, as applicable.
(iii) The name and address of each person directly or indirectly
controlling or controlled by the applicant and each person under direct
or indirect control with the applicant.
(2) For non-corporate applicants:
(i) The name and address of each person having a financial interest
therein the non-corporate applicant and the nature and extent of that
interest.
(ii) The name and address of each person employed or who will be
employed in a management position described in Secs. 119.65 and 119.69,
as applicable.
(e) In addition, each applicant for the original issue of an
operating certificate under paragraph (c) of this section must submit
with the application a signed statement showing--
(1) The financial information listed in paragraph (h) of this
section; and
(2) The nature and scope of its intended operation, including the
name and address of each person, if any, with whom the applicant has a
contract to provide services as a commercial operator and the scope,
nature, date, and duration of each of those contracts.
(f) Each applicant for, or holder of, a certificate issued under
paragraph (c) of this section this part, shall notify the Administrator
within 10 days after--
(1) A change in any of the persons, or the names and addresses of
any of the persons, submitted to the Administrator under paragraph
(d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section; or
(2) A change in the financial information submitted to the
Administrator under paragraph (g) of this section that occurs while the
application for the issue is pending before the FAA and that would make
the applicant's financial situation substantially less favorable than
originally reported.
(g) Each applicant for the original issue of an operating
certificate under paragraph (c) of this section must submit the
following financial information:
(1) A balance sheet that shows assets, liabilities, and net worth,
as of a date not more than 60 days before the date of application.
(2) An itemization of liabilities more than 60 days past due on the
balance sheet date, if any, showing each creditor's name and address, a
description of the liability, and the amount and due date of the
liability.
(3) An itemization of claims in litigation, if any, against the
applicant as of the date of application showing each claimant's name
and address and a description and the amount of the claim.
(4) A detailed projection of the proposed operation covering 6
complete months after the month in which the certificate is expected to
be issued including--
(i) Estimated amount and source of both operating and nonoperating
revenue, including identification of its existing and anticipated
income producing contracts and estimated revenue per mile or hour of
operation by aircraft type;
(ii) Estimated amount of operating and nonoperating expenses by
expense objective classification; and
(iii) Estimated net profit or loss for the period.
(5) An estimate of the cash that will be needed for the proposed
operations during the first 6 months after the month in which the
certificate is expected to be issued, including--
(i) Acquisition of property and equipment (explain);
(ii) Retirement of debt (explain);
(iii) Additional working capital (explain);
(iv) Operating losses other than depreciation and amortization
(explain); and
(v) Other (explain).
(6) An estimate of the cash that will be available during the first
6 months after the month in which the certificate is expected to be
issued, from--
(i) Sale of property or flight equipment (explain);
(ii) New debt (explain);
(iii) New equity (explain);
(iv) Working capital reduction (explain);
(v) Operations (profits) (explain);
(vi) Depreciation and amortization (explain); and
(vii) Other (explain).
(7) A schedule of insurance coverage in effect on the balance sheet
date showing insurance companies; policy numbers; types, amounts, and
period of coverage; and special conditions, exclusions, and
limitations.
(8) Any other financial information that the Administrator requires
to enable him to determine that the applicant has sufficient financial
resources to conduct his or her operations with the degree of safety
required in the public interest.
(h) Each financial statement containing financial information
required by paragraph (g) of this section must be based on accounts
prepared and maintained on an accrual basis in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis,
and must contain the name and address of the applicant's public
accounting firm, if any. Information submitted must be signed by an
officer, owner, or partner of the applicant or certificate holder.
Sec. 119.37 Contents of an Air Carrier Certificate or Operating
Certificate.
The Air Carrier Certificate or Operating Certificate includes--
(a) The certificate holder's name;
(b) The location of the certificate holder's principal base of
operations;
(c) The certificate number;
(d) The certificate's effective date; and
(e) The name or the designator of the certificate-holding district
office.
Sec. 119.39 Issuing or denying a certificate.
(a) An applicant may be issued an Air Carrier Certificate or
Operating Certificate if, after investigation, the Administrator finds
that the applicant--
(1) Meets the applicable requirements of this part;
(2) Holds the economic authority applicable to the kinds of
operations to be conducted, issued by the Department of Transportation,
if required; and
[[Page 65919]]
(3) Is properly and adequately equipped in accordance with the
requirements of this chapter and is able to conduct a safe operation
under appropriate provisions of part 121 or part 135 of this chapter
and operations specifications issued under this part.
(b) An application for a certificate may be denied if the
Administrator finds that--
(1) The applicant is not properly or adequately equipped or is not
able to conduct safe operations under this subchapter;
(2) The applicant previously held an Air Carrier Certificate or
Operating Certificate which was revoked;
(3) The applicant intends to or fills a key management position
listed in Sec. 119.65(a) or Sec. 119.69(a), as applicable, with an
individual who exercised control over or who held the same or a similar
position with a certificate holder whose certificate was revoked, or is
in the process of being revoked, and that individual materially
contributed to the circumstances causing revocation or causing the
revocation process;
(4) An individual who will have control over or have a substantial
ownership interest in the applicant had the same or similar control or
interest in a certificate holder whose certificate was revoked, or is
in the process of being revoked, and that individual materially
contributed to the circumstances causing revocation or causing the
revocation process; or
(5) In the case of an applicant for an Operating Certificate for
intrastate common carriage, that for financial reasons the applicant is
not able to conduct a safe operation.
Sec. 119.41 Amending a certificate.
(a) The Administrator may amend any certificate issued under this
part if--
(1) The Administrator determines, under 49 U.S.C. 44709 and part 13
of this chapter, that safety in air commerce and the public interest
requires the amendment; or
(2) The certificate holder applies for the amendment and the
certificate-holding district office determines that safety in air
commerce and the public interest allows the amendment.
(b) When the Administrator proposes to issue an order amending,
suspending, or revoking all or part of any certificate, the procedure
in Sec. 13.19 of this chapter applies.
(c) When the certificate holder applies for an amendment of its
certificate, the following procedure applies:
(1) The certificate holder must file an application to amend its
certificate with the certificate-holding district office at least 15
days before the date proposed by the applicant for the amendment to
become effective, unless the administrator approves filing within a
shorter period; and
(2) The application must be submitted to the certificate-holding
district office in the form and manner prescribed by the Administrator.
(d) When a certificate holder seeks reconsideration of a decision
from the certificate-holding district office concerning amendments of a
certificate, the following procedure applies:
(1) The petition for reconsideration must be made within 30 days
after the certificate holder receives the notice of denial; and
(2) The certificate holder must petition for reconsideration to the
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Sec. 119.43 Certificate holder's duty to maintain operations
specifications.
(a) Each certificate holder shall maintain a complete and separate
set of its operations specifications at its principal base of
operations.
(b) Each certificate holder shall insert pertinent excerpts of its
operations specifications, or references thereto, in its manual and
shall--
(1) Clearly identify each such excerpt as a part of its operations
specifications; and
(2) State that compliance with each operations specifications
requirement is mandatory.
(c) Each certificate holder shall keep each of its employees and
other persons used in its operations informed of the provisions of its
operations specifications that apply to that employee's or person's
duties and responsibilities.
Sec. 119.45 [Reserved]
Sec. 119.47 Maintaining a principal base of operations, main
operations base, and main maintenance base; change of address.
(a) Each certificate holder must maintain a principal base of
operations. Each certificate holder may also establish a main
operations base and a main maintenance base which may be located at
either the same location as the principal base of operations or at
separate locations.
(b) At least 30 days before it proposes to establish or change the
location of its principal base of operations, its main operations base,
or its main maintenance base, a certificate holder must provide written
notification to its certificate-holding district office.
Sec. 119.49 Contents of operations specifications.
(a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic, flag, or commuter
operations must obtain operations specifications containing all of the
following:
(1) The specific location of the certificate holder's principal
base of operations and, if different, the address that shall serve as
the primary point of contact for correspondence between the FAA and the
certificate holder and the name and mailing address of the certificate
holder's agent for service.
(2) Other business names under which the certificate holder may
operate.
(3) Reference to the economic authority issued by the Department of
Transportation, if required.
(4) Type of aircraft, registration markings, and serial numbers of
each aircraft authorized for use, each regular and alternate airport to
be used in scheduled operations, and, except for commuter operations,
each provisional and refueling airport.
(i) Subject to the approval of the Administrator with regard to
form and content, the certificate holder may incorporate by reference
the items listed in paragraph (a)(4) of this section into the
certificate holder's operations specifications by maintaining a current
listing of those items and by referring to the specific list in the
applicable paragraph of the operations specifications.
(ii) The certificate holder may not conduct any operation using any
aircraft or airport not listed.
(5) Kinds of operations authorized.
(6) Authorization and limitations for routes and areas of
operations.
(7) Airport limitations.
(8) Time limitations, or standards for determining time
limitations, for overhauling, inspecting, and checking airframes,
engines, propellers, rotors, appliances, and emergency equipment.
(9) Authorization for the method of controlling weight and balance
of aircraft.
(10) Interline equipment interchange requirements, if relevant.
(11) Aircraft wet lease information required by Sec. 119.53(c).
(12) Any authorized deviation and exemption granted from any
requirement of this chapter.
(13) Any other item the Administrator determines is necessary.
(b) Each certificate holder conducting supplemental operations must
obtain operations specifications containing all of the following:
(1) The specific location of the certificate holder's principal
base of operations, and, if different, the address that shall serve as
the primary point of contact for correspondence between the FAA and the
certificate holder and the name and mailing address of the certificate
holder's agent for service.
[[Page 65920]]
(2) Other business names under which the certificate holder may
operate.
(3) Reference to the economic authority issued by the Department of
Transportation, if required.
(4) Type of aircraft, registration markings, and serial number of
each aircraft authorized for use.
(i) Subject to the approval of the Administrator with regard to
form and content, the certificate holder may incorporate by reference
the items listed in paragraph (b)(4) of this section into the
certificate holder's operations specifications by maintaining a current
listing of those items and by referring to the specific list in the
applicable paragraph of the operations specifications.
(ii) The certificate holder may not conduct any operation using any
aircraft not listed.
(5) Kinds of operations authorized.
(6) Authorization and limitations for routes and areas of
operations.
(7) Special airport authorizations and limitations.
(8) Time limitations, or standards for determining time
limitations, for overhauling, inspecting, and checking airframes,
engines, propellers, appliances, and emergency equipment.
(9) Authorization for the method of controlling weight and balance
of aircraft.
(10) Aircraft wet lease information required by Sec. 119.53(c).
(11) Any authorization or requirement to conduct supplemental
operations as provided by Sec. 119.21(a)(3) (i) or (ii).
(12) Any authorized deviation or exemption from any requirement of
this chapter.
(13) Any other item the Administrator determines is necessary.
(c) Each certificate holder conducting on-demand operations must
obtain operations specifications containing all of the following:
(1) The specific location of the certificate holder's principal
base of operations, and if different, the address that shall serve as
the primary point of contact for correspondence between the FAA and the
name and mailing address of the certificate holder's agent for service.
(2) Other business names under which the certificate holder may
operate.
(3) Reference to the economic authority issued by the Department of
Transportation, if required.
(4) Kind and area of operations authorized.
(5) Category and class of aircraft that may be used in those
operations.
(6) Type of aircraft, registration markings, and serial number of
each aircraft that is subject to an airworthiness maintenance program
required by Sec. 135.411(a)(2) of this chapter.
(i) Subject to the approval of the Administrator with regard to
form and content, the certificate holder may incorporate by reference
the items listed in paragraph (c)(6) of this section into the
certificate holder's operations specifications by maintaining a current
listing of those items and by referring to the specific list in the
a
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
pplicable paragraph of the operations specifications.
(ii) The certificate holder may not conduct any operation using any
aircraft not listed.
(7) Registration markings of each aircraft that is to be inspected
under an approved aircraft inspection program under Sec. 135.419 of
this chapter.
(8) Time limitations or standards for determining time limitations,
for overhauls, inspections, and checks for airframes, engines,
propellers, rotors, appliances, and emergency equipment of aircraft
that are subject to an airworthiness maintenance program required by
Sec. 135.411(a)(2) of this chapter.
(9) Additional maintenance items required by the Administrator
under Sec. 135.421 of this chapter.
(10) Aircraft wet lease information required by Sec. 119.53(c).
(11) Any authorized deviation or exemption from any requirement of
this chapter.
(12) Any other item the Administrator determines is necessary.
Sec. 119.51 Amending operations specifications.
(a) The Administrator may amend any operations specifications
issued under this part if--
(1) The Administrator determines that safety in air commerce and
the public interest require the amendment; or
(2) The certificate holder applies for the amendment, and the
Administrator determines that safety in air commerce and the public
interest allows the amendment.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, when the
Administrator initiates an amendment to a certificate holder's
operations specifications, the following procedure applies:
(1) The certificate-holding district office notifies the
certificate holder in writing of the proposed amendment.
(2) The certificate-holding district office sets a reasonable
period (but not less than 7 days) within which the certificate holder
may submit written information, views, and arguments on the amendment.
(3) After considering all material presented, the certificate-
holding district office notifies the certificate holder of--
(i) The adoption of the proposed amendment;
(ii) The partial adoption of the proposed amendment; or
(iii) The withdrawal of the proposed amendment.
(4) If the certificate-holding district office issues an amendment
to the operations specifications, it becomes effective not less than 30
days after the certificate holder receives notice of it unless--
(i) The certificate-holding district office finds under paragraph
(e) of this section that there is an emergency requiring immediate
action with respect to safety in air commerce; or
(ii) The certificate holder petitions for reconsideration of the
amendment under paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) When the certificate holder applies for an amendment to its
operations specifications, the following procedure applies:
(1) The certificate holder must file an application to amend its
operations specifications--
(i) At least 90 days before the date proposed by the applicant for
the amendment to become effective, unless a shorter time is approved,
in cases of mergers; acquisitions of airline operational assets that
require an additional showing of safety (e.g., proving tests); changes
in the kind of operation as defined in Sec. 119.3; resumption of
operations following a suspension of operations as a result of
bankruptcy actions; or the initial introduction of aircraft not before
proven for use in air carrier or commercial operator operations.
(ii) At least 15 days before the date proposed by the applicant for
the amendment to become effective in all other cases.
(2) The application must be submitted to the certificate-holding
district office in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator.
(3) After considering all material presented, the certificate-
holding district office notifies the certificate holder of--
(i) The adoption of the applied for amendment;
(ii) The partial adoption of the applied for amendment; or
(iii) The denial of the applied for amendment. The certificate
holder may petition for reconsideration of a denial under paragraph (d)
of this section.
(4) If the certificate-holding district office approves the
amendment, following coordination with the
[[Page 65921]]
certificate holder regarding its implementation, the amendment is
effective on the date the Administrator approves it.
(d) When a certificate holder seeks reconsideration of a decision
from the certificate-holding district office concerning the amendment
of operations specifications, the following procedure applies:
(1) The certificate holder must petition for reconsideration of
that decision within 30 days of the date that the certificate holder
receives a notice of denial of the amendment to its operations
specifications, or of the date it receives notice of an FAA-initiated
amendment to its operations specifications, whichever circumstance
applies.
(2) The certificate holder must address its petition to the
Director, Flight Standards Service.
(3) A petition for reconsideration, if filed within the 30-day
period, suspends the effectiveness of any amendment issued by the
certificate-holding district office unless the certificate-holding
district office has found, under paragraph (e) of this section, that an
emergency exists requiring immediate action with respect to safety in
air transportation or air commerce.
(4) If a petition for reconsideration is not filed within 30 days,
the procedures of paragraph (c) of this section apply.
(e) If the certificate-holding district office finds that an
emergency exists requiring immediate action with respect to safety in
air commerce or air transportation that makes the procedures set out in
this section impracticable or contrary to the public interest:
(1) The certificate-holding district office amends the operations
specifications and makes the amendment effective on the day the
certificate holder receives notice of it.
(2) In the notice to the certificate holder, the certificate-
holding district office articulates the reasons for its finding that an
emergency exists requiring immediate action with respect to safety in
air transportation or air commerce or that makes it impracticable or
contrary to the public interest to stay the effectiveness of the
amendment.
Sec. 119.53 Wet leasing of aircraft and other arrangements for
transportation by air.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, prior to
conducting operations involving a wet lease, each certificate holder
under this part authorized to conduct common carriage operations under
this subchapter shall provide the Administrator with a copy of the wet
lease to be executed which would lease the aircraft to any other person
engaged in common carriage operations under this subchapter, including
foreign air carriers, or to any other foreign person engaged in common
carriage wholly outside the United States.
(b) No certificate holder under this part may wet lease from a
foreign air carrier or any other foreign person or any person not
authorized to engage in common carriage.
(c) Upon receiving a copy of a wet lease, the Administrator
determines which party to the agreement has operational control of the
aircraft and issues amendments to the operations specifications of each
party to the agreement, as needed. The lessor must provide the
following information to be incorporated into the operations
specifications of both parties, as needed.
(1) The names of the parties to the agreement and the duration
thereof.
(2) The nationality and registration markings of each aircraft
involved in the agreement.
(3) The kind of operation (e.g., domestic, flag, supplemental,
commuter, or on-demand).
(4) The airports or areas of operation.
(5) A statement specifying the party deemed to have operational
control and the times, airports, or areas under which such operational
control is exercised.
(d) In making the determination of paragraph (c) of this section,
the Administrator will consider the following:
(1) Crewmembers and training.
(2) Airworthiness and performance of maintenance.
(3) Dispatch.
(4) Servicing the aircraft.
(5) Scheduling.
(6) Any other factor the Administrator considers relevant.
(e) Other arrangements for transportation by air: Except as
provided in paragraph (f) of this section, a certificate holder under
this part operating under part 121 or 135 of this chapter may not
conduct any operation for another certificate holder under this part or
a foreign air carrier under part 129 of this chapter or a foreign
person engaged in common carriage wholly outside the United States
unless it holds applicable Department of Transportation economic
authority, if required, and is authorized under its operations
specifications to conduct the same kinds of operations (as defined in
Sec. 119.3). The certificate holder conducting the substitute operation
must conduct that operation in accordance with the same operations
authority held by the certificate holder arranging for the substitute
operation. These substitute operations must be conducted between
airports for which the substitute certificate holder holds authority
for scheduled operations or within areas of operations for which the
substitute certificate holder has authority for supplemental or on-
demand operations.
(f) A certificate holder under this part may, if authorized by the
Department of Transportation under Sec. 380.3 of this title and the
Administrator in the case of interstate commuter, interstate domestic,
and flag operations, or the Administrator in the case of scheduled
intrastate common carriage operations, conduct one or more flights for
passengers who are stranded because of the cancellation of their
scheduled flights. These flights must be conducted under the rules of
part 121 or part 135 of this chapter applicable to supplemental or on-
demand operations.
Sec. 119.55 Obtaining deviation authority to perform operations under
a U.S. military contract.
(a) The Administrator may authorize a certificate holder that is
authorized to conduct supplemental or on-demand operations to deviate
from the applicable requirements of this part, part 121, or part 135 of
this chapter in order to perform operations under a U.S. military
contract.
(b) A certificate holder that has a contract with the U.S.
Department of Defense's Air Mobility Command (AMC) must submit a
request for deviation authority to AMC. AMC will review the requests,
then forward the carriers' consolidated requests, along with AMC's
recommendations, to the FAA for review and action.
(c) The Administrator may authorize a deviation to perform
operations under a U.S. military contract under the following
conditions--
(1) The Department of Defense certifies to the Administrator that
the operation is essential to the national defense;
(2) The Department of Defense further certifies that the
certificate holder cannot perform the operation without deviation
authority;
(3) The certificate holder will perform the operation under a
contract or subcontract for the benefit of a U.S. armed service; and
(4) The Administrator finds that the deviation is based on grounds
other than economic advantage either to the certificate holder or to
the United States.
(d) In the case where the Administrator authorizes a deviation
under this section, the Administrator will issue an appropriate
amendment to
[[Page 65922]]
the certificate holder's operations specifications.
(e) The Administrator may, at any time, terminate any grant of
deviation authority issued under this section.
Sec. 119.57 Obtaining deviation authority to perform an emergency
operation.
(a) In emergency conditions, the Administrator may authorize
deviations if--
(1) Those conditions necessitate the transportation of persons or
supplies for the protection of life or property; and
(2) The Administrator finds that a deviation is necessary for the
expeditious conduct of the operations.
(b) When the Administrator authorizes deviations for operations
under emergency conditions--
(1) The Administrator will issue an appropriate amendment to the
certificate holder's operations specifications; or
(2) If the nature of the emergency does not permit timely amendment
of the operations specifications--
(i) The Administrator may authorize the deviation orally; and
(ii) The certificate holder shall provide documentation describing
the nature of the emergency to the certificate-holding district office
within 24 hours after completing the operation.
Sec. 119.58 Emergencies requiring immediate decision and action.
(a) In an emergency situation that requires immediate decision and
action, the pilot in command may take any action that he considers
necessary under the circumstances. In such a case, he may deviate from
prescribed operations procedures and methods, weather minimums, and
this chapter to the extent required in the interest of safety.
(b) In an emergency situation arising during flight, that requires
immediate decision and action by an aircraft dispatcher or appropriate
management personnel, and that is known to him, he shall advise the
pilot in command of the emergency, shall ascertain the decision of the
pilot in command, and shall have the decision recorded. If he cannot
communicate with the pilot, he shall declare an emergency and take any
reasonable action necessary under the circumstances.
(c) Whenever a pilot in command or a dispatcher or an appropriate
management person exercises emergency authority, he shall keep the
appropriate ATC facility, ground radio station, and, if applicable,
dispatch centers, fully informed of the progress of the flight. The
person declaring the emergency shall send a written report of any
deviation through the certificate holder's management to the
Administrator within 10 days of the emergency action.
Sec. 119.59 Conducting tests and inspections.
(a) At any time or place, the Administrator may conduct an
inspection or test to determine whether a certificate holder under this
part is complying with title 49 of the United States Code, applicable
regulations, the certificate, or the certificate holder's operations
specifications.
(b) The certificate holder must--
(1) Make available to the Administrator at the certificate holder's
principal base of operations--
(i) The certificate holder's Air Carrier Certificate or the
certificate holder's Operating Certificate and the certificate holder's
operations specifications; and
(ii) A current listing that will include the location and persons
responsible for each record, document, and report required to be kept
by the certificate holder under title 49 of the United States Code
applicable to the operation of the certificate holder.
(2) Allow the Administrator to make any test or inspection to
determine compliance respecting any matter stated in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(c) Each employee of, or person used by, the certificate holder who
is responsible for maintaining the certificate holder's records must
make those records available to the Administrator.
(d) The Administrator may determine a certificate holder's
continued eligibility to hold its certificate and/or operations
specifications on any grounds listed in paragraph (a) of this section,
or any other appropriate grounds.
(e) Failure by any certificate holder to make available to the
Administrator upon request, the certificate, operations specifications,
or any required record, document, or report is grounds for suspension
of all or any part of the certificate holder's certificate and
operations specifications.
(f) In the case of operators conducting intrastate common carriage
operations, these inspections and tests include inspections and tests
of financial books and records.
Sec. 119.61 Duration and surrender of certificate and operations
specifications.
(a) An Air Carrier Certificate or Operating Certificate issued
under this part is effective until--
(1) The certificate holder surrenders it to the Administrator; or
(2) The Administrator suspends, revokes, or otherwise terminates
the certificate.
(b) Operations specifications issued under this part, part 121, or
part 135 of this chapter are effective unless--
(1) The Administrator suspends, revokes, or otherwise terminates
the certificate;
(2) The operations specifications are amended as provided in
Sec. 119.51;
(3) The certificate holder does not conduct a kind of operation for
more than the time specified in Sec. 119.63 and fails to follow the
procedures of Sec. 119.63 upon resuming that kind of operation; or
(4) The Administrator suspends or revokes the operations
specifications for a kind of operation.
(c) Within 30 days after a certificate holder terminates operations
under part 135 of this chapter, the operating certificate and
operations specifications must be surrendered by the certificate holder
to the certificate-holding district office.
Sec. 119.63 Recency of operation.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no
certificate holder may conduct a kind of operation for which it holds
authority in its operations specifications unless the certificate
holder has conducted that kind of operation within the preceding number
of consecutive calendar days specified in this paragraph:
(1) For domestic, flag, or commuter operations--30 days.
(2) For supplemental or on-demand operations--90 days, except that
if the certificate holder has authority to conduct domestic, flag, or
commuter operations, and has conducted domestic, flag or commuter
operations within the previous 30 days, this paragraph does not apply.
(b) If a certificate holder does not conduct a kind of operation
for which it is authorized in its operations specifications within the
number of preceding 30 consecutive calendar days specified in paragraph
(a) of this section, it shall not conduct such kind of operation
unless--
(1) It advises the Administrator at least 5 consecutive calendar
days before resumption of that kind of operation; and
(2) It makes itself available and accessible during the 5
consecutive calendar day period in the event that the FAA decides to
conduct a full inspection reexamination to determine whether the
certificate holder remains properly and adequately equipped and able to
conduct a safe operation.
[[Page 65923]]
Sec. 119.65 Management personnel required for operations conducted
under part 121 of this chapter.
(a) Each certificate holder must have sufficient qualified
management and technical personnel to ensure the highest degree of
safety in its operations. The certificate holder must have qualified
personnel serving full-time in the following or equivalent positions:
(1) Director of Safety.
(2) Director of Operations.
(3) Chief Pilot.
(4) Director of Maintenance.
(5) Chief Inspector.
(b) The Administrator may approve positions or numbers of positions
other than those listed in paragraph (a) of this section for a
particular operation if the certificate holder shows that it can
perform the operation with the highest degree of safety under the
direction of fewer or different categories of management personnel due
to--
(1) The kind of operation involved;
(2) The number and type of airplanes used; and
(3) The area of operations.
(c) The title of the positions required under paragraph (a) of this
section or the title and number of equivalent positions approved under
paragraph (b) of this section shall be set forth in the certificate
holder's operations specifications.
(d) The individuals who serve in the positions required or approved
under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and anyone in a position to
exercise control over operations conducted under the operating
certificate must--
(1) Be qualified through training, experience, and expertise;
(2) To the extent of their responsibilities, have a full
understanding of the following materials with respect to the
certificate holder's operation--
(i) Aviation safety standards and safe operating practices;
(ii) 14 CFR Chapter I (Federal Aviation Regulations);
(iii) The certificate holder's operations specifications;
(iv) All appropriate maintenance and airworthiness requirements of
this chapter (e.g., parts 1, 21, 23, 25, 43, 45, 47, 65, 91, and 121 of
this chapter); and
(v) The manual required by Sec. 121.133 of this chapter; and
(3) Discharge their duties to meet applicable legal requirements
and to maintain safe operations.
(e) Each certificate holder must:
(1) State in the general policy provisions of the manual required
by Sec. 121.133 of this chapter, the duties, responsibilities, and
authority of personnel required under paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) List in the manual the names and business addresses of the
individuals assigned to those positions; and
(3) Notify the certificate-holding district office within 10 days
of any change in personnel or any vacancy in any position listed.
Sec. 119.67 Management personnel: Qualifications for operations
conducted under part 121 of this chapter.
(a) To serve as Director of Operations under Sec. 119.65(a) a
person must--
(1) Hold an airline transport pilot certificate;
(2) Have at least 3 years supervisory or managerial experience
within the last 6 years in a position that exercised operational
control over any operations conducted with large airplanes under part
121 or part 135 of this chapter, or if the certificate holder uses only
small airplanes in its operations, the experience may be obtained in
large or small airplanes; and
(3) In the case of a person becoming a Director of Operations--
(i) For the first time ever, have at least 3 years experience,
within the past 6 years, as pilot in command of a large airplane
operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, if the certificate
holder operates large airplanes. If the certificate holder uses only
small airplanes in its operation, the experience may be obtained in
either large or small airplanes.
(ii) In the case of a person with previous experience as a Director
of Operations, have at least 3 years experience as pilot in command of
a large airplane operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter,
if the certificate holder operates large airplanes. If the certificate
holder uses only small airplanes in its operation, the experience may
be obtained in either large or small airplanes.
(b) To serve as Chief Pilot under Sec. 119.65(a) a person must hold
an airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate ratings for at
least one of the airplanes used in the certificate holder's operation
and:
(1) In the case of a person becoming a Chief Pilot for the first
time ever, have at least 3 years experience, within the past 6 years,
as pilot in command of a large airplane operated under part 121 or part
135 of this chapter, if the certificate holder operates large
airplanes. If the certificate holder uses only small airplanes in its
operation, the experience may be obtained in either large or small
airplanes.
(2) In the case of a person with previous experience as a Chief
Pilot, have at least 3 years experience, as pilot in command of a large
airplane operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, if the
certificate holder operates large airplanes. If the certificate holder
uses only small airplanes in its operation, the experience may be
obtained in either large or small airplanes.
(c) To serve as Director of Maintenance under Sec. 119.65(a) a
person must--
(1) Hold a mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant
ratings;
(2) Have 1 year of experience in a position responsible for
returning airplanes to service;
(3) Have at least 1 year of experience in a supervisory capacity
under either paragraph (c)(4)(i) or (c)(4)(ii) of this section
maintaining the same category and class of airplane as the certificate
holder uses; and
(4) Have 3 years experience within the past 6 years in one or a
combination of the following--
(i) Maintaining large airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats,
including at the time of appointment as Director of Maintenance,
experience in maintaining the same category and class of airplane as
the certificate holder uses; or
(ii) Repairing airplanes in a certificated airframe repair station
that is rated to maintain airplanes in the same category and class of
airplane as the certificate holder uses.
(d) To serve as Chief Inspector under Sec. 119.65(a) a person
must--
(1) Hold a mechanic certificate with both airframe and powerplant
ratings, and have held these ratings for at least 3 years;
(2) Have at least 3 years of maintenance experience on different
types of large airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats with an air
carrier or certificated repair station, 1 year of which must have been
as maintenance inspector; and
(3) Have at least 1 year in a supervisory capacity maintaining
large aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats.
(e) A certificate holder may request a deviation to employ a person
who does not meet the appropriate airman, managerial, or supervisory
experience requirements of this section if the Manager of the Air
Transportation Division or the Manager of the Aircraft Maintenance
Division of the FAA Flight Standards Service finds that the person has
comparable experience, and can effectively perform the functions
associated with the position in accordance with the Federal Aviation
Regulations and the procedures outlined in the certificate holder's
manual. Grants of deviation under this paragraph
[[Page 65924]]
may be granted after consideration of the size and scope of the
operation and the qualifications of the intended personnel. The
Administrator may, at any time, terminate any grant of deviation
authority issued under this paragraph.
Sec. 119.69 Management personnel required for operations conducted
under part 135 of this chapter.
(a) Each certificate holder must have sufficient qualified
management and technical personnel to ensure the safety of its
operations. Except for a certificate holder using only one pilot in its
operations, the certificate holder must have qualified personnel
serving in the following or equivalent positions:
(1) Director of Operations.
(2) Chief Pilot.
(3) Director of Maintenance.
(b) The Administrator may approve positions or numbers of positions
other than those listed in paragraph (a) of this section for a
particular operation if the certificate holder shows that it can
perform the operation with the highest degree of safety under the
direction of fewer or different categories of management personnel due
to--
(1) The kind of operation involved;
(2) The number and type of aircraft used; and
(3) The area of operations.
(c) The title of the positions required under paragraph (a) of this
section or the title and number of equivalent positions approved under
paragraph (b) of this section shall be set forth in the certificate
holder's operations specifications.
(d) The individuals who serve in the positions required or approved
under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and anyone in a position to
exercise control over operations conducted under the operating
certificate must--
(1) Be qualified through training, experience, and expertise;
(2) To the extent of their responsibilities, have a full
understanding of the following material with respect to the certificate
holder's operation--
(i) Aviation safety standards and safe operating practices;
(ii) 14 CFR Chapter I (Federal Aviation Regulations);
(iii) The certificate holder's operations specifications;
(iv) All appropriate maintenance and airworthiness requirements of
this chapter (e.g., parts 1, 21, 23, 25, 43, 45, 47, 65, 91, and 135 of
this chapter); and
(v) The manual required by Sec. 135.21 of this chapter; and
(3) Discharge their duties to meet applicable legal requirements
and to maintain safe operations.
(e) Each certificate holder must--
(1) State in the general policy provisions of the manual required
by Sec. 135.21 of this chapter, the duties, responsibilities, and
authority of personnel required or approved under paragraph (a) or (b),
respectively, of this section;
(2) List in the manual the names and business addresses of the
individuals assigned to those positions; and
(3) Notify the certificate-holding district office within 10 days
of any change in personnel or any vacancy in any position listed.
Sec. 119.71 Management personnel: Qualifications for operations
conducted under part 135 of this chapter.
(a) To serve as Director of Operations under Sec. 119.69(a) for a
certificate holder conducting any operations for which the pilot in
command is required to hold an airline transport pilot certificate a
person must hold an airline transport pilot certificate and either:
(1) Have at least 3 years supervisory or managerial experience
within the last 6 years in a position that exercised operational
control over any operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 of
this chapter; or
(2) In the case of a person becoming Director of Operations--
(i) For the first time ever, have at least 3 years experience,
within the past 6 years, as pilot in command of an aircraft operated
under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
(ii) In the case of a person with previous experience as a Director
of Operations, have at least 3 years experience, as pilot in command of
an aircraft operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
(b) To serve as Director of Operations under Sec. 119.69(a) for a
certificate holder that only conducts operations for which the pilot in
command is required to hold a commercial pilot certificate, a person
must hold at least a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument
rating and either:
(1) Have at least 3 years supervisory or managerial experience
within the last 6 years in a position that exercised operational
control over any operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 of
this chapter; or
(2) In the case of a person becoming Director of Operations--
(i) For the first time ever, have at least 3 years experience,
within the past 6 years, as pilot in command of an aircraft operated
under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
(ii) In the case of a person with previous experience as a Director
of Operations, have at least 3 years experience as pilot in command of
an aircraft operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
(c) To serve as Chief Pilot under Sec. 119.69(a) for a certificate
holder conducting any operation for which the pilot in command is
required to hold an airline transport pilot certificate a person must
hold an airline transport pilot certificate with appropriate ratings
and be qualified to serve as pilot in command in at least one aircraft
used in the certificate holder's operation and:
(1) In the case of a person becoming a Chief Pilot for the first
time ever, have at least 3 years experience, within the past 6 years,
as pilot in command of an aircraft operated under part 121 or part 135
of this chapter.
(2) In the case of a person with previous experience as a Chief
Pilot, have at least 3 years experience as pilot in command of an
aircraft operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
(d) To serve as Chief Pilot under Sec. 119.69(a) for a certificate
holder that only conducts operations for which the pilot in command is
required to hold a commercial pilot certificate, a person must hold at
least a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating and be
qualified to serve as pilot in command in at least one aircraft used in
the certificate holder's operation and:
(1) In the case of a person becoming a Chief Pilot for the first
time ever, have at least 3 years experience, within the past 6 years,
as pilot in command of an aircraft operated under part 121 or part 135
of this chapter.
(2) In the case of a person with previous experience as a Chief
Pilot, have at least 3 years experience as pilot in command of an
aircraft operated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.
(e) To serve as Director of Maintenance under Sec. 119.69(a) a
person must hold a mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant
ratings and either:
(1) Have 3 years of experience within the past 3 years maintaining
aircraft as a certificated mechanic, including, at the time of
appointment as Director of Maintenance, experience in maintaining the
same category and class of aircraft as the certificate holder uses; or
(2) Have 3 years of experience within the past 3 years repairing
aircraft in a certificated airframe repair station, including 1 year in
the capacity of approving aircraft for return to service.
(f) A certificate holder may request a deviation to employ a person
who does not meet the appropriate airman, managerial, or supervisory
experience requirements of this section if the
[[Page 65925]]
Manager of the Air Transportation Division or the Manager of the
Aircraft Maintenance Division of the FAA Flight Standards Service finds
that the person has comparable experience, and can effectively perform
the functions associated with the position in accordance with 14 CFR
Chapter I and the procedures outlined in the certificate holder's
manual. Grants of deviation under this paragraph may be granted after
consideration of the size and scope of the operation and the
qualifications of the intended personnel. The Administrator may, at any
time, terminate any grant of deviation authority issued under this
paragraph.
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
6. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
7. The heading for part 121 is revised to read as set forth above.
8. Special Federal Aviation Regulation 38-2 is amended by revising
the last paragraph to read as follows:
SFAR 38-2--Certification and Operating Requirements
* * * * *
This Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 38-2 terminates
March 20, 1997.
9. A note for SFAR 50-2 is added after the SFAR No. to read as
follows:
SFAR No. 50-2
Note: For the text of SFAR No. 50-2, see part 91 of this
chapter.
10. Section 121.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.1 Applicability.
This part prescribes rules governing--
(a) The domestic, flag, and supplemental operations of each person
who holds or is required to hold an Air Carrier Certificate or
Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter.
(b) Each person employed or used by a certificate holder conducting
operations under this part including maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alteration of aircraft.
(c) Each person who applies for provisional approval of an Advanced
Qualification Program curriculum, curriculum segment, or portion of a
curriculum segment under SFAR No. 58 of 14 CFR part 121, and each
person employed or used by an air carrier or commercial operator under
this part to perform training, qualification, or evaluation functions
under an Advanced Qualification Program under SFAR No. 58 of 14 CFR
part 121.
(d) Nonstop sightseeing flights conducted with airplanes having a
passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or fewer and a maximum payload
capacity of 7,500 pounds or less that begin and end at the same
airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of that
airport; however, except for operations subject to SFAR 50-2 of 14 CFR
part 121, these operations, when conducted for compensation or hire,
must comply only with Secs. 121.455 and 121.457, except that an
operator who does not hold an air carrier certificate or an operating
certificate is permitted to use a person who is otherwise authorized to
perform aircraft maintenance or preventive maintenance duties and who
is not subject to FAA-approved anti-drug and alcohol misuse prevention
programs to perform--
(1) Aircraft maintenance or preventive maintenance on the
operator's aircraft if the operator would otherwise be required to
transport the aircraft more than 50 nautical miles further than the
repair point closest to the operator's principal base of operations to
obtain these services; or
(2) Emergency repairs on the operator's aircraft if the aircraft
cannot be safely operated to a location where an employee subject to
FAA-approved programs can perform the repairs.
(e) Each person who is on board an aircraft being operated under
this part.
(f) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate
or an Operating Certificate under part 119 of this chapter, when
conducting proving tests.
11. Section 121.2 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 121.2 Compliance schedule for operators that transition to part
121; certain new entrant operators.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to the following:
(1) Each certificate holder that was issued an air carrier or
operating certificate and operations specifications under the
requirements of part 135 of this chapter or under SFAR No. 38-2 of 14
CFR part 121 before January 19, 1996, and that conducts scheduled
passenger-carrying operations with:
(i) Nontransport category turbopropeller powered airplanes type
certificated after December 31, 1964, that have a passenger seat
configuration of 10-19 seats;
(ii) Transport category turbopropeller powered airplanes that have
a passenger seat configuration of 20-30 seats; or
(iii) Turbojet engine powered airplanes having a passenger seat
configuration of 1-30 seats.
(2) Each person who, after January 19, 1996, applies for or obtains
an initial air carrier or operating certificate and operations
specifications to conduct scheduled passenger-carrying operations in
the kinds of airplanes described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii),
or paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(b) Obtaining operations specifications. A certificate holder
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may not, after March 20,
1997, operate an airplane described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i),
(a)(1)(ii), or (a)(1)(iii) of this section in scheduled passenger-
carrying operations, unless it obtains operations specifications to
conduct its scheduled operations under this part on or before March 20,
1997.
(c) Regular or accelerated compliance. Except as provided in
paragraphs (d), (e), and (i) of this section, each certificate holder
described in paragraphs (a)(1) of this section shall comply with each
applicable requirement of this part on and after March 20, 1997 or on
and after the date on which the certificate holder is issued operations
specifications under this part, whichever occurs first. Except as
provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, each person
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall comply with each
applicable requirement of this part on and after the date on which that
person is issued a certificate and operations specifications under this
part.
(d) Delayed compliance dates. Unless paragraph (e) of this section
specifies an earlier compliance date, no certificate holder that is
covered by paragraph (a) of this section may operate an airplane in 14
CFR part 121 operations on or after a date listed in this paragraph (d)
unless that airplane meets the applicable requirement of this paragraph
(d):
(1) Nontransport category turbopropeller powered airplanes type
certificated after December 31, 1964, that have a passenger seating
configuration of 10-19 seats. No certificate holder may operate under
this part an airplane that is described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section on or after a date listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section
unless that airplane meets the applicable requirement listed in this
paragraph (d)(1):
(i) December 22, 1997:
(A) Section 121.289, Landing gear aural warning.
(B) Section 121.308, Lavatory fire protection.
[[Page 65926]]
(C) Section 121.310(e), Emergency exit handle illumination.
(D) Section 121.337(b)(8), Protective breathing equipment.
(E) Section 121.340, Emergency flotation means.
(ii) December 20, 1999: Section 121.342, Pitot heat indication
system.
(iii) December 20, 2010:
(A) For airplanes described in Sec. 121.157(f), the Airplane
Performance Operating Limitations in Secs. 121.189 through 121.197.
(B) Section 121.161(b), Ditching approval.
(C) Section 121.305(j), Third attitude indicator.
(D) Section 121.312(c), Passenger seat cushion flammability.
(2) Transport category turbopropeller powered airplanes that have a
passenger seat configuration of 20-30 seats. No certificate holder may
operate under this part an airplane that is described in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this section on or after a date listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) (i) and (ii) unless that airplane meets the applicable
requirement listed in paragraphs (a)(1) (i) and (ii):
(i) December 22, 1997:
(A) Section 121.308, Lavatory fire protection.
(B) Section 121.337(b) (8) and (9), Protective breathing equipment.
(C) Section 121.340, Emergency flotation means.
(ii) March 20, 1997: Section 121.305(j), Third attitude indicator.
(e) Newly manufactured airplanes. No certificate holder that is
described in paragraph (a) of this section may operate under this part
an airplane manufactured on or after a date listed in this paragraph
unless that airplane meets the applicable requirement listed in this
paragraph (e).
(1) For nontransport category turbopropeller powered airplanes type
certificated after December 31, 1964, that have a passenger seat
configuration of 10-19 seats:
(i) Manufactured on or after March 20, 1997:
(A) Section 121.305(j), Third attitude indicator.
(B) Section 121.311(f), Safety belts and shoulder harnesses.
(ii) Manufactured on or after December 22, 1997: Section
121.317(a), Fasten seat belt light.
(iii) Manufactured on or after December 20, 1999: Section 121.293,
Takeoff warning system.
(2) For transport category turbopropeller powered airplanes that
have a passenger seat configuration of 20-30 seats manufactured on or
after March 20, 1997: Section 121.305(j), Third attitude indicator.
(f) New type certification requirements. No person may operate an
airplane for which the application for a type certificate was filed
after March 29, 1995, in 14 CFR part 121 operations unless that
airplane is type certificated under part 25 of this chapter.
(g) Transition plan. Before March 19, 1996 each certificate holder
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must submit to the FAA a
transition plan (containing a calendar of events) for moving from
conducting its scheduled operations under the commuter requirements of
part 135 of this chapter to the requirements for domestic or flag
operations under this part. Each transition plan must contain details
on the following:
(1) Plans for obtaining new operations specifications authorizing
domestic or flag operations;
(2) Plans for being in compliance with the applicable requirements
of this part on or before March 20, 1997; and
(3) Plans for complying with the compliance date schedules
contained in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(h) Continuing requirements. Until each certificate holder that is
covered by paragraph (a) of this section meets the specific compliance
dates listed in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, the certificate
holder shall comply with the applicable airplane and equipment
requirements of part 135 of this chapter.
(i) Delayed pilot age limitation:
(1) Notwithstanding Sec. 121.383(c), and except as provided in
paragraph (i)(2) of this section, a certificate holder covered by
paragraph (a)(1) of this section may use the services of a person as a
pilot after that person has reached his or her 60th birthday, until
December 20, 1999. Notwithstanding Sec. 121.383(c), and except as
provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, a person may serve as a
pilot for a certificate holder covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section after that person has reached his or her 60th birthday, until
December 20, 1999.
(2) This paragraph (i)(1) applies only to persons who were employed
as pilots by a certificate holder covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section on or before March 20, 1997.
Secs. 121.3, 121.5, 121.7, 121.9, and 121.13 [Removed]
12. Sections 121.3, 121.5, 121.7, 121.9, and 121.13 are removed.
Sec. 121.4 [Amended]
13. Section 121.4 is amended by removing ``Sec. 121.3'' wherever it
appears and adding in its place ``part 119 of this chapter''.
14. Section 121.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.15 Carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or
stimulant drugs or substances.
If a certificate holder operating under this part permits any
aircraft owned or leased by that holder to be engaged in any operation
that the certificate holder knows to be in violation of Sec. 91.19(a)
of this chapter, that operation is a basis for suspending or revoking
the certificate.
Subpart B--[Removed and Reserved]
15. Subpart B (Secs. 121.21 through 121.29) is removed, and the
subpart heading is reserved.
Subpart C--[Removed and Reserved]
16. Subpart C (Secs. 121.41 through 121.61) is removed and the
subpart heading is reserved.
Subpart D--[Removed and Reserved]
17. Subpart D (Secs. 121.71 through 121.83) is removed and the
subpart heading is reserved.
18. Section 121.133 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.133 Preparation.
(a) Each certificate holder shall prepare and keep current a manual
for the use and guidance of flight, ground operations, and management
personnel in conducting its operations.
(b) For the purpose of this subpart, the certificate holder may
prepare that part of the manual containing maintenance information and
instructions, in whole or in part, in printed form or other form
acceptable to the Administrator.
19. Section 121.135 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4);
(b)(2); (b)(6); (b)(7); (b)(8)(i), (ii), and (iii); (b)(23)
introductory text and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.135 Contents.
(a) * * *
(4) Not be contrary to any applicable Federal regulation and, in
the case of a flag or supplemental operation, any applicable foreign
regulation, or the certificate holder's operations specifications or
operating certificate.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Duties and responsibilities of each crewmember, appropriate
members of the ground organization, and management personnel.
* * * * *
(6) For domestic or flag operations, appropriate information from
the en route operations specifications, including for each approved
route the types of airplanes authorized, the type of operation such as
VFR, IFR, day,
[[Page 65927]]
night, etc., and any other pertinent information.
(7) For supplemental operations, appropriate information from the
operations specifications, including the area of operations authorized,
the types of airplanes authorized, the type of operation such as VFR,
IFR, day, night, etc., and any other pertinent information.
(8) * * *
(i) Its location (domestic and flag operations only);
(ii) Its designation (regular, alternate, provisional, etc.)
(domestic and flag operations only);
(iii) The types of airplanes authorized (domestic and flag
operations only);
* * * * *
(23) Procedures and information to assist personnel to identify
packages marked or labeled as containing hazardous materials and, if
these materials are to be carried, stored, or handled, procedures and
instructions relating to the carriage, storage, or handling of
hazardous materials, including the following:
* * * * *
(c) Each certificate holder shall maintain at least one complete
copy of the manual at its principal base of operations.
20. Section 121.141 is revised amended by revising the section
heading, paragraph (a), and the introductory text of paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 121.141 Airplane flight manual.
(a) Each certificate holder shall keep a current approved airplane
flight manual for each type of airplane that it operates except for
nontransport category airplanes certificated before January 1, 1965.
(b) In each airplane required to have an airplane flight manual in
paragraph (a) of this section, the certificate holder shall carry
either the manual required by Sec. 121.133, if it contains the
information required for the applicable flight manual and this
information is clearly identified as flight manual requirements, or an
approved Airplane Manual. If the certificate holder elects to carry the
manual required by Sec. 121.133, the certificate holder may revise the
operating procedures sections and modify the presentation of
performance data from the applicable flight manual if the revised
operating procedures and modified performance date presentation are--
(1) Approved by the Administrator; and
(2) Clearly identified as airplane flight manual requirements.
* * * * *
21. Section 121.157 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e)
and by adding new paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.157 Aircraft certification and equipment requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Airplanes certificated after June 30, 1942. Except as provided
in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this section, no certificate
holder may operate an airplane that was type certificated after June
30, 1942, unless it is certificated as a transport category airplane
and meets the requirements of Sec. 121.173(a), (b), (d), and (e).
* * * * *
(e) Commuter category airplanes. Except as provided in paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this section, no certificate holder may operate under
this part a nontransport category airplane type certificated after
December 31, 1964, and before March 30, 1995, unless it meets the
applicable requirements of Sec. 121.173(a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) and
was type certificated in the commuter category.
(f) Other nontransport category airplanes. Except as provided in
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, no certificate holder may
operate under this part a nontransport category airplane type
certificated after December 31, 1964, unless it meets the applicable
requirements of Sec. 121.173(a), (b), (d), and (e), was manufactured
before March 20, 1997, and meets one of the following:
(1) Until December 20, 2010:
(i) The airplane was type certificated in the normal category
before July 1, 1970, and meets special conditions issued by the
Administrator for airplanes intended for use in operations under part
135 of this chapter.
(ii) The airplane was type certificated in the normal category
before July 19, 1970, and meets the additional airworthiness standards
in SFAR No. 23, 14 CFR part 23.
(iii) The airplane was type certificated in the normal category and
meets the additional airworthiness standards in appendix A of part 135
of this chapter.
(iv) The airplane was type certificated in the normal category and
complies with either section 1.(a) or 1.(b) of SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR
part 21.
(2) The airplane was type certificated in the normal category,
meets the additional requirements described in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)
through (f)(1)(iv) of this section, and meets the performance
requirements in appendix K of this part.
(g) Certain newly manufactured airplanes. No certificate holder may
operate an airplane under this part that was type certificated as
described in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iv) of this section
and that was manufactured after March 20, 1997, unless it meets the
performance requirements in appendix K of this part.
(h) Newly type certificated airplanes. No person may operate under
this part an airplane for which the application for a type certificate
is submitted after March 29, 1995, unless the airplane is type
certificated under part 25 of this chapter.
22. Section 121.159 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.159 Single-engine airplanes prohibited.
No certificate holder may operate a single-engine airplane under
this part.
23. Section 121.161 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and by
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.161 Airplane limitations: Type of route.
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no
certificate holder may operate a land airplane (other than a DC-3, C-
46, CV-240, CV-340, CV-440, CV-580, CV-600, CV-640, or Martin 404) in
an extended overwater operation unless it is certificated or approved
as adequate for ditching under the ditching provisions of part 25 of
this chapter.
(c) Until December 20, 2010, a certificate holder may operate, in
an extended overwater operation, a nontransport category land airplane
type certificated after December 31, 1964, that was not certificated or
approved as adequate for ditching under the ditching provisions of part
25 of this chapter.
24. Section 121.163 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) and the introductory text of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.163 Airplane proving tests.
(a) Initial airplane proving tests. No person may operate an
airplane not before proven for use in a kind of operation under this
part or part 135 of this chapter unless an airplane of that type has
had, in addition to the airplane certification tests, at least 100
hours of proving tests acceptable to the Administrator, including a
representative number of flights into en route airports. The
requirement for at least 100 hours of proving tests may be reduced by
the Administrator if the Administrator determines that a satisfactory
level of proficiency has been demonstrated to justify the reduction. At
least 10 hours of proving flights must
[[Page 65928]]
be flown at night; these tests are irreducible.
(b) Proving tests for kinds of operations. Unless otherwise
authorized by the Administrator, for each type of airplane, a
certificate holder must conduct at least 50 hours of proving tests
acceptable to the Administrator for each kind of operation it intends
to conduct, including a representative number of flights into en route
airports.
(c) Proving tests for materially altered airplanes. Unless
otherwise authorized by the Administrator, for each type of airplane
that is materially altered in design, a certificate holder must conduct
at least 50 hours of proving tests acceptable to the Administrator for
each kind of operation it intends to conduct with that airplane,
including a representative number of flights into en route airports.
(d) Definition of materially altered. For the purposes of paragraph
(c) of this section, a type of airplane is considered to be materially
altered in design if the alteration includes--
* * * * *
Subpart I--[Amended]
25. Subpart I is amended by removing the words ``transport
category'' wherever they appear.
26. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e) of Sec. 121.173 are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 121.173 General.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each
certificate holder operating a reciprocating-engine-powered airplane
shall comply with Secs. 121.175 through 121.187.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each
certificate holder operating a turbine-engine-powered airplane shall
comply with the applicable provisions of Secs. 121.189 through 121.197,
except that when it operates--
(1) A turbo-propeller-powered airplane type certificated after
August 29, 1959, but previously type certificated with the same number
of reciprocating engines, the certificate holder may comply with
Secs. 121.175 through 121.187; or
(2) Until December 20, 2010, a turbo-propeller-powered airplane
described in Sec. 121.157(f), the certificate holder may comply with
the applicable performance requirements of appendix K of this part.
(c) Each certificate holder operating a large nontransport category
airplane type certificated before January 1, 1965, shall comply with
Secs. 121.199 through 121.205 and any determination of compliance must
be based only on approved performance data.
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person
may take off a reciprocating-engine-powered airplane at a weight that
is more than the allowable weight for the runway being used (determined
under the runway takeoff limitations of the transport category
operating rules of 14 CFR part 121, subpart I) after taking into
account the temperature operating correction factors in the applicable
Airplane Flight Manual.
* * * * *
27. Section 121.175 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.175 Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: Weight
limitations.
* * * * *
(f) This section does not apply to large nontransport category
airplanes operated under Sec. 121.173(c).
28. Section 121.177 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.177 Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: Takeoff
limitations.
* * * * *
(c) This section does not apply to large nontransport category
airplanes operated under Sec. 121.173(c).
29. Section 121.179 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.179 Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: En route
limitations: all engines operating.
* * * * *
(c) This section does not apply to large nontransport category
airplanes operated under Sec. 121.173(c).
30. Section 121.181 is amended by revising the section heading; by
revising the formulas in paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read ``(0.079-
0.106/N) Vso2'' and revising ``0.026 Vso2'' in
paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read ``0.026 Vso2''; and adding
a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.181 Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: En route
limitations: One engine inoperative.
* * * * *
(d) This section does not apply to large nontransport category
airplanes operated under Sec. 121.173(c).
Sec. 121.183 [Amended]
31. Section 121.183 is amended by revising ``0.0013 Vso2'' in
paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(3) to read ``0.013 Vso2''.
32. Section 121.185 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.185 Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: Landing
limitations: Destination airport.
* * * * *
(c) This section does not apply to large nontransport category
airplanes operated under Sec. 121.173(c).
33. Section 121.187 is amended by revising the section heading,
designating the existing text as paragraph (a), and by adding a new
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.187 Airplanes: Reciprocating-engine-powered: Landing
limitations: Alternate airport.
* * * * *
(b) This section does not apply to large nontransport category
airplanes operated under Sec. 121.173(c).
34. Section 121.211 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.211 Applicability.
(a) This subpart prescribes special airworthiness requirements
applicable to certificate holders as stated in paragraphs (b) through
(e) of this section.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each
airplane type certificated under Aero Bulletin 7A or part 04 of the
Civil Air Regulations in effect before November 1, 1946 must meet the
special airworthiness requirements in Secs. 121.215 through 121.283.
(c) Each certificate holder must comply with the requirements of
Secs. 121.285 through 121.291.
(d) If the Administrator determines that, for a particular model of
airplane used in cargo service, literal compliance with any requirement
under paragraph (b) of this section would be extremely difficult and
that compliance would not contribute materially to the objective
sought, he may require compliance only with those requirements that are
necessary to accomplish the basic objectives of this part.
(e) No person may operate under this part a nontransport category
airplane type certificated after December 31, 1964, unless the airplane
meets the special airworthiness requirements in Sec. 121.293.
Sec. 121.213 [Reserved]
35. Section 121.213 is removed and reserved.
36. Section 121.285 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and by
adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.285 Carriage of cargo in passenger cargo compartments.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), (c), or (d) or this
section, no
[[Page 65929]]
certificate holder may carry cargo in the passenger compartment of an
airplane.
* * * * *
(d) Cargo, including carry-on baggage, may be carried anywhere in
the passenger compartment of a nontransport category airplane type
certificated after December 31, 1964, if it is carried in an approved
cargo rack, bin, or compartment installed in or on the airplane, if it
is secured by an approved means, or if it is carried in accordance with
each of the following:
(1) For cargo, it is properly secured by a safety belt or other
tie-down having enough strength to eliminate the possibility of
shifting under all normally anticipated flight and ground conditions,
or for carry-on baggage, it is restrained so as to prevent its movement
during air turbulence.
(2) It is packaged or covered to avoid possible injury to
occupants.
(3) It does not impose any load on seats or in the floor structure
that exceeds the load limitation for those components.
(4) It is not located in a position that obstructs the access to,
or use of, any required emergency or regular exit, or the use of the
aisle between the crew and the passenger compartment, or is located in
a position that obscures any passenger's view of the ``seat belt''
sign, ``no smoking'' sign or placard, or any required exit sign, unless
an auxiliary sign or other approved means for proper notification of
the passengers is provided.
(5) It is not carried directly above seated occupants.
(6) It is stowed in compliance with this section for takeoff and
landing.
(7) For cargo-only operations, paragraph (d)(4) of this section
does not apply if the cargo is loaded so that at least one emergency or
regular exit is available to provide all occupants of the airplane a
means of unobstructed exit from the airplane if an emergency occurs.
Sec. 121.289 [Amended]
37. Section 121.289(a) introductory text is amended by removing the
word ``large.''
38. Section 121.291 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b) and the introductory text of paragraph (c); revising
paragraph (c)(2) and (c)(4); and by adding a new sentence at the end of
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.291 Demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures.
* * * * *
(b) Each certificate holder conducting operations with airplanes
with a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers must conduct a
partial demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section upon:
* * * * *
(c) In conducting the partial demonstration required by paragraph
(b) of this section, each certificate holder must:
* * * * *
(2) Apply for and obtain approval from the certificate-holding
district office before conducting the demonstration;
* * * * *
(4) Apply for and obtain approval from the certificate-holding
district office before commencing operations with this type and model
airplane.
(d) * * * For certificate holders subject to Sec. 121.2(a)(1), this
paragraph applies only when a new type or model airplane is introduced
into the certificate holder's operations after January 19, 1996.
* * * * *
39. A new Sec. 121.293 is added to read as follows:
121.293 Special airworthiness requirements for nontransport category
airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964.
No certificate holder may operate a nontransport category airplane
manufactured after December 20, 1999 unless the airplane contains a
takeoff warning system that meets the requirements of 14 CFR 25.703.
However, the takeoff warning system does not have to cover any device
for which it has been demonstrated that takeoff with that device in the
most adverse position would not create a hazardous condition.
40. Section 121.305 is amended by revising paragraph (j) and adding
a new paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.305 Flight and navigational equipment.
* * * * *
(j) On the airplanes described in this paragraph, in addition to
two gyroscopic bank-and-pitch indicators (artificial horizons) for use
at the pilot stations, a third such instrument that complies with the
provisions of paragraph (k) of this section:
(1) On each turbojet powered airplane.
(2) On each turbopropeller powered airplane that is manufactured
after March 20, 1997.
(3) After December 20, 2010, on each turbopropeller powered
airplane having a passenger seat configuration of 10-30 seats, that was
manufactured before March 20, 1997.
(k) When required by paragraph (j) of this section, a third
gyroscopic bank-and-pitch indicator (artificial horizon) that:
(1) Is powered from a source independent of the electrical
generating system;
(2) Continues reliable operation for a minimum of 30 minutes after
total failure of the electrical generating system;
(3) Operates independently of any other attitude indicating system;
(4) Is operative without selection after total failure of the
electrical generating system;
(5) Is located on the instrument panel in a position acceptable to
the Administrator that will make it plainly visible to and usable by
each pilot at his or her station; and
(6) Is appropriately lighted during all phases of operation.
41. Section 121.308 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.308 Lavatory fire protection.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section,
no person may operate a passenger-carrying airplane unless each
lavatory in the airplane is equipped with a smoke detector system or
equivalent that provides a warning light in the cockpit or provides a
warning light or audio warning in the passenger cabin which would be
readily detected by a flight attendant, taking into consideration the
positioning of flight attendants throughout the passenger compartment
during various phases of flight.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person
may operate a passenger-carrying airplane unless each lavatory in the
airplane is equipped with a built-in fire extinguisher for each
disposal receptacle for towels, paper, or waste located within the
lavatory. The built-in fire extinguisher must be designed to discharge
automatically into each disposal receptacle upon occurrence of a fire
in the receptacle.
(c) Until December 22, 1997, a certificate holder described in
Sec. 121.2(a) (1) or (2) may operate an airplane with a passenger seat
configuration of 30 or fewer seats that does not comply with the smoke
detector system requirements described in paragraph (a) of this section
and the fire extinguisher requirements described in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(d) After December 22, 1997, no person may operate a nontransport
category airplane type certificated after December 31, 1964, with a
passenger
[[Page 65930]]
seat configuration of 10-19 seats unless that airplane complies with
the smoke detector system requirements described in paragraph (a) of
this section, except that the smoke detector system or equivalent must
provide a warning light in the cockpit or an audio warning that would
be readily detected by the flightcrew.
42. Section 121.309 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(7),
(d)(1), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.309 Emergency equipment.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(7) At least two of the required hand fire extinguisher installed
in passenger-carrying airplanes must contain Halon 1211
(bromochlorofluoromethane) or equivalent as the extinguishing agent. At
least one hand fire extinguisher in the passenger compartment must
contain Halon 1211 or equivalent.
* * * * *
(d) First aid and emergency medical equipment and protective
gloves. (1) For treatment of injuries or medical emergencies that might
occur during flight time or in minor accidents each passenger-carrying
airplane must have the following equipment that meets the
specifications and requirements of appendix A of this part:
(i) Approved first aid kits; and
(ii) In airplanes for which a flight attendant is required, an
emergency medical kit.
* * * * *
(e) Crash ax. Except for nontransport category airplanes type
certificated after December 31, 1964, each airplane must be equipped
with a crash ax.
* * * * *
43. Section 121.310 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1), (2),
(3), and (4) and (l) and revising the introductory text of paragraphs
(c), (f), (h)(1) and (k) to read as follows:
121.310 Additional emergency equipment.
* * * * *
(c) Lighting for interior emergency exit markings. Except for
nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31,
1964, each passenger-carrying airplane must have an emergency lighting
system, independent of the main lighting system. However, sources of
general cabin illumination may be common to both the emergency and the
main lighting systems if the power supply to the emergency lighting
system is independent of the power supply to the main lighting system.
The emergency lighting system must--
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Each light must--
(i) Be operable manually both from the flightcrew station and, for
airplanes on which a flight attendant is required, from a point in the
passenger compartment that is readily accessible to a normal flight
attendant seat;
(ii) Have a means to prevent inadvertent operation of the manual
controls; and
(iii) When armed or turned on at either station, remain lighted or
become lighted upon interruption of the airplane's normal electric
power.
(2) Each light must be armed or turned on during taxiing, takeoff,
and landing. In showing compliance with this paragraph a transverse
vertical separation of the fuselage need not be considered.
(3) Each light must provide the required level of illumination for
at least 10 minutes at the critical ambient conditions after emergency
landing.
(4) Each light must have a cockpit control device that has an
``on,'' ``off,'' and ``armed'' position.
* * * * *
(f) Emergency exit access. Access to emergency exits must be
provided as follows for each passenger-carrying transport category
airplane:
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Except for nontransport category airplanes certificated after
December 31, 1964, each passenger-carrying airplane must be equipped
with exterior lighting that meets the following requirements:
* * * * *
(k) On each large passenger-carrying turbojet-powered airplane,
each ventral exit and tailcone exit must be--
* * * * *
(l) Portable lights. No person may operate a passenger-carrying
airplane unless it is equipped with flashlight stowage provisions
accessible from each flight attendant seat.
* * * * *
44. Section 121.311 is amended by revising the first sentence of
the introductory text of paragraph (e), by adding a new paragraph
(e)(3), by revising the introductory text of paragraph (f), and by
revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.311 Seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses.
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this
section, no certificate holder may take off or land an airplane unless
each passenger seat back is in the upright position. * * *
* * * * *
(3) On airplanes with no flight attendant, the certificate holder
may take off or land as long as the flightcrew instructs each passenger
to place his or her seat back in the upright position for takeoff and
landing.
(f) No person may operate a transport category airplane that was
type certificated after January 1, 1958, or a nontransport category
airplane manufactured after March 20, 1997, unless it is equipped at
each flight deck station with a combined safety belt and shoulder
harness that meets the applicable requirements specified in Sec. 25.785
of this chapter, effective March 6, 1980, except that--
* * * * *
(h) Each occupant of a seat equipped with a shoulder harness or
with a combined safety belt and shoulder harness must have the shoulder
harness or combined safety belt and shoulder harness properly secured
about that occupant during takeoff and landing, except that a shoulder
harness that is not combined with a safety belt may be unfastened if
the occupant cannot perform the required duties with the shoulder
harness fastened.
* * * * *
45. Section 121.312 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.312 Materials for compartment interiors.
(a) All interior materials; transport category airplanes and
nontransport category airplanes type certificated before January 1,
1965. Except for the materials covered by paragraph (b) of this
section, all materials in each compartment of a transport category
airplane, or a nontransport category airplane type certificated before
January 1, 1965, used by the crewmembers and passengers, must meet the
requirements of Sec. 25.853 of this chapter in effect as follows, or
later amendment thereto:
(1) Airplane with passenger seating capacity of 20 or more.
(i) Manufactured after August 19, 1988, but prior to August 20,
1990. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, each
airplane with a passenger capacity of 20 or more and manufactured after
August 19, 1988,
FR Doc. 95-30545 Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements
but prior to August 20, 1990, must comply with the
heat release rate testing provisions of Sec. 25.853(d) in effect March
6, 1995 (formerly Sec. 25.853(a-1) in effect on August 20, 1986) (see
App. L of this part), except that the total heat release over the first
2 minutes of sample exposure must not exceed 100 kilowatt minutes per
square meter and the peak heat release rate must not exceed 100
kilowatts per square meter.
[[Page 65931]]
(ii) Manufactured after August 19, 1990. Each airplane with a
passenger capacity of 20 or more and manufactured after August 19,
1990, must comply with the heat release rate and smoke testing
provisions of Sec. 25.853(d) in effect March 6, 1995 (formerly
Sec. 25.853(a-1)(see app. L of this part) in effect on September 26,
1988).
(2) Substantially complete replacement of the cabin interior on or
after May 1, 1972.--(i) Airplane for which the application for type
certificate was filed prior to May 1, 1972. Except as provided in
paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section, each airplane for
which the application for type certificate was filed prior to May 1,
1972, must comply with the provisions of Sec. 25.853 in effect on April
30, 1972, regardless of passenger capacity, if there is a substantially
complete replacement of the cabin interior after April 30, 1972.
(ii) Airplane for which the application for type certificate was
filed on or after May 1, 1972. Except as provided in paragraph
(a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section, each airplane for which the
application for type certificate was filed on or after May 1, 1972,
must comply with the material requirements under which the airplane was
type certificated, regardless of passenger capacity, if there is a
substantially complete replacement of the cabin interior on or after
that date.
(3) Airplane type certificated after January 1, 1958, with
passenger capacity of 20 or more.--(i) Substantially complete
replacement of the cabin interior on or after March 6, 1995. Except as
provided in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section, each airplane that
was type certificated after January 1, 1958, and has a passenger
capacity of 20 or more, must comply with the heat release rate testing
provisions of Sec. 25.853(d) in effect March 6, 1995 (formerly
Sec. 25.853(a-1) in effect on August 20, 1986)(see app. L of this
part), if there is a substantially complete replacement of the cabin
interior components identified in Sec. 25.853(d), on or after that
date, except that the total heat release over the first 2 minutes of
sample exposure shall not exceed 100 kilowatt-minutes per square meter
and the peak heat release rate must not exceed 100 kilowatts per square
meter.
(ii) Substantially complete replacement of the cabin interior on or
after August 20, 1990. Each airplane that was type certificated after
January 1, 1958, and has a passenger capacity of 20 or more, must
comply with the heat release rate and smoke testing provisions of
Sec. 25.853(d) in effect March 6, 1995 (formerly Sec. 25.853(a-1) in
effect on September 26, 1988)(see app. L of this part), if there is a
substantially complete replacement of the cabin interior components
identified in Sec. 25.853(d), on or after August 20, 1990.
(4) Contrary provisions of this section notwithstanding, the
Manager of the Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, may authorize deviation from
the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(3)(i), or
(a)(3)(ii) of this section for specific components of the cabin
interior that do not meet applicable flammability and smoke emission
requirements, if the determination is made that special circumstances
exist that make compliance impractical. Such grants of deviation will
be limited to those airplanes manufactured within 1 year after the
applicable date specified in this section and those airplanes in which
the interior is replaced within 1 year of that date. A request for such
grant of deviation must include a thorough and accurate analysis of
each component subject to Sec. 25.853(a-1), the steps being taken to
achieve compliance, and, for the few components for which timely
compliance will not be achieved, credible reasons for such
noncompliance.
(5) Contrary provisions of this section notwithstanding, galley
carts and galley standard containers that do not meet the flammability
and smoke emission requirements of Sec. 25.853(d) in effect March 6,
1995 (formerly Sec. 25.853(a-1)) (see app. L of this part) may be used
in airplanes that must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(i),
(a)(1)(ii), (a)(3)(i), or (a)(3)(ii) of this section, provided the
galley carts or standard containers were manufactured prior to March 6,
1995.
(b) Seat cushions. Seat cushions, except those on flight crewmember
seats, in each compartment occupied by crew or passengers, must comply
with the requirements pertaining to seat cushions in Sec. 25.853(c)
effective on November 26, 1984, on each airplane as follows:
(1) Each transport category airplane type certificated after
January 1, 1958; and
(2) On or after December 20, 2010, each nontransport category
airplane type certificated after December 31, 1964.
(c) All interior materials; airplanes type certificated in
accordance with SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR part 21. No person may operate an
airplane that conforms to an amended or supplemental type certificate
issued in accordance with SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR part 21 for a maximum
certificated takeoff weight in excess of 12,500 pounds unless the
airplane meets the compartment interior requirements set forth in
Sec. 25.853(a) in effect March 6, 1995 (formerly Sec. 25.853(a), (b),
(b-1), (b-2), and (b-3) of this chapter in effect on September 26,
1978)(see app. L of this part).
(d) All interior materials; other airplanes. For each material or
seat cushion to which a requirement in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of
this section does not apply, the material and seat cushion in each
compartment used by the crewmembers and passengers must meet the
applicable requirement under which the airplane was type certificated.
46. Section 121.313(f) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.313 Miscellaneous equipment.
* * * * *
(f) A door between the passenger and pilot compartments, with a
locking means to prevent passengers from opening it without the pilot's
permission, except that nontransport category airplanes certificated
after December 31, 1964, are not required to comply with this
paragraph.
* * * * *
47. Section 121.317 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(k) and by adding a new paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.317 Passenger information.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, no person
may operate an airplane unless it is equipped with passenger
information signs that meet the requirements of Sec. 25.791 of this
chapter. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, the signs
must be constructed so that the crewmembers can turn them on and off.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, the
``Fasten Seat Belt'' sign shall be turned on during any movement on the
surface, for each takeoff, for each landing, and at any other time
considered necessary by the pilot in command.
* * * * *
(k) Each passenger shall comply with instructions given him or her
by a crewmember regarding compliance with paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and
(l) of this section.
(l) A certificate holder may operate a nontransport category
airplane type certificated after December 31, 1964, that is
manufactured before December 22, 1997, if it is equipped with at least
one placard that is legible to each person seated in the cabin that
states ``Fasten Seat Belt,'' and if, during any
[[Page 65932]]
movement on the surface, for each takeoff, for each landing, and at any
other time considered necessary by the pilot in command, a crewmember
orally instructs the passengers to fasten their seat belts.
48. Section 121.323(b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.323 Instruments and equipment for operations at night.
* * * * *
(b) An anti-collision light.
(c) Two landing lights, except that only one landing light is
required for nontransport category airplanes type certificated after
December 31, 1964.
* * * * *
49. Section 121.337 is amended by removing the words ``a transport
category'' from the introductory text in paragraph (b) and adding in
its place ``an'', by adding a heading for paragraph (b)(8), by adding a
heading and revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(9), and by
removing paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.337 Protective breathing equipment.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) Smoke and fume protection. * * *
(9) Fire combatting. Except for nontransport category airplanes
type certificated after December 31, 1964, protective breathing
equipment with a portable breathing gas supply meeting the requirements
of this section must be easily accessible and conveniently located for
immediate use by crewmembers in combatting fires as follows:
* * * * *
50. Section 121.340 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 121.340 Emergency flotation means.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
may operate an airplane in any overwater operation unless it is
equipped with life preservers in accordance with Sec. 121.339(a)(1) or
with an approved flotation means for each occupant. This means must be
within easy reach of each seated occupant and must be readily removable
from the airplane.
* * * * *
51. Section 121.341 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and by
adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.341 Equipment for operations in icing conditions.
(a) Except as permitted in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, unless
an airplane is type certificated under the transport category
airworthiness requirements relating to ice protection, or unless an
airplane is a non-transport category airplane type certificated after
December 31, 1964, that has the ice protection provisions that meet
section 34 of appendix A of part 135 of this chapter, no person may
operate an airplane in icing conditions unless it is equipped with
means for the prevention or removal of ice on windshields, wings,
empennage, propellers, and other parts of the airplane where ice
formation will adversely affect the safety of the airplane.
* * * * *
(c) Non-transport category airplanes type certificated after
December 31, 1964. Except for an airplane that has ice protection
provisions that meet section 34 of appendix A of part 135 of this
chapter, or those for transport category airplane type certification,
no person may operate--
(1) Under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing
conditions;
(2) Under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions; unless
the airplane has functioning deicing anti-icing equipment protecting
each propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and
each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument
system; or
(3) Into known or forecast severe icing conditions.
(d) If current weather reports and briefing information relied upon
by the pilot in command indicate that the forecast icing condition that
would otherwise prohibit the flight will not be encountered during the
flight because of changed weather conditions since the forecast, the
restrictions in paragraph (c) of this section based on forecast
conditions do not apply.
52. Section 121.342 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.342 Pitot heat indication systems.
No person may operate a transport category airplane or, after
December 20, 1999, a nontransport category airplane type certificated
after December 31, 1964, that is equipped with a flight instrument
pitot heating system unless the airplane is also equipped with an
operable pitot heat indication system that complies Sec. 25.1326 of
this chapter in effect on April 12, 1978.
53. Section 121.344 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 121.344 Flight recorders: Airplanes with a passenger seat
configuration of 10-30 passenger seats and a payload capacity of 7,500
pounds or less.
No person may operate an airplane with a passenger seat
configuration of 10-30 passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat,
and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less unless it meets the
requirements for flight recorders in Sec. 135.152 of this chapter. A
person operating an airplane with a passenger seat configuration of
more than 30 passenger seats, or a payload capacity of more than 7,500
pounds shall comply with Sec. 121.343.
54. Section 121.349 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to
read as follows:
Sec. 121.349 Radio equipment for operations under VFR over routes not
navigated by pilotage or for operations under IFR or over-the-top.
* * * * *
(e) No person may operate an airplane having a passenger seat
configuration of 10 to 30 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, and a
payload of 7,500 pounds or less under IFR or in extended overwater
operations unless it has, in addition to any other required radio
communications and navigational equipment appropriate to the facilities
to be used which are capable of transmitting to, and receiving from, at
any place on the route to be flown, at least one ground facility, two
microphones, and two headsets or one headset and one speaker.
55. Section 121.353 is amended by revising the heading and the
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 121.353 Emergency equipment for operations over uninhabited
terrain areas: Flag, supplemental, and certain domestic operations.
Unless the airplane has the following equipment, no person may
conduct a flag or supplemental operation or a domestic operation within
the States of Alaska or Hawaii over an uninhabited area or any other
area that (in its operations specifications) the Administrator
specifies required equipment for search and rescue in case of an
emergency:
* * * * *
56. Section 121.356 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.356 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.
* * * * *
(c) The appropriate manuals required by Sec. 121.131 shall contain
the following information on the TCAS II System or TCAS I System, as
appropriate, as required by this section:
* * * * *
57. Section 121.357 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and
introductory text of paragraph (c) and by removing the words ``an air
carrier or commercial operator'' in paragraph (c)(1) and
[[Page 65933]]
adding, in their place, the words ``a certificate holder,'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 121.357 Airborne weather radar equipment requirements.
(a) No person may operate any transport category airplane (except
C-46 type airplanes) or a nontransport category airplane certificated
after December 31, 1964, unless approved airborne weather radar
equipment has been installed in the airplane.
* * * * *
(c) Each person operating an airplane required to have approved
airborne weather radar equipment installed shall, when using it under
this part, operate it in accordance with the following:
* * * * *
58. Section 121.359 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b), by revising the introductory text of paragraph (c), by
redesignating paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs (f) through (h),
respectively, and adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.359 Cockpit voice recorders.
* * * * *
(c) The cockpit voice recorder required by paragraph (a) of this
section must meet the following application standards:
* * * * *
(d) No person may operate a multiengine, turbine-powered airplane
having a passenger seat configuration of 10-19 seats unless it is
equipped with an approved cockpit voice recorder that:
(1) Is installed in compliance with Sec. 23.1457(a) (1) and (2),
(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g); Sec. 25.1457(a) (1) and (2), (b),
(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this chapter, as applicable; and
(2) Is operated continuously from the use of the checklist before
the flight to completion of the final checklist at the end of the
flight.
(e) No person may operate a multiengine, turbine-powered airplane
having a passenger seat configuration of 20 to 30 seats unless it is
equipped with an approved cockpit voice recorder that--
(1) Is installed in compliance with Sec. 23.1457 or Sec. 25.1457 of
this chapter, as applicable; and
(2) Is operated continuously from the use of the checklist before
the flight to completion of the final checklist at the end of the
flight.
* * * * *
59. Section 121.360 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.360 Ground proximity warning-glide slope deviation alerting
system.
(a) No person may operate a turbine-powered airplane unless it is
equipped with a ground proximity warning system that meets the
performance and environmental standards of TSO-C92 (available from the
FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591) or incorporates
TSO-approved ground proximity warning equipment.
(b) For the ground proximity warning system required by this
section, the Airplane Flight Manual shall contain--
(1) Appropriate procedures for--
(i) The use of the equipment;
(ii) Proper flightcrew action with respect to the equipment;
(iii) Deactivation for planned abnormal and emergency conditions;
(iv) Inhibition of Mode 4 warnings based on flaps being in other
than the landing configuration if the system incorporates a Mode 4 flap
warning inhibition control; and
(2) An outline of all input sources that must be operating.
(c) No person may deactivate a ground proximity warning system
required by this section except in accordance with the procedures
contained in the Airplane Flight Manual.
(d) Whenever a ground proximity warning system required by this
section is deactivated, an entry shall be made in the airplane
maintenance record that includes the date and time of deactivation.
(e) No person may operate a turbine-powered airplane unless it is
equipped with a ground proximity warning/glide slope deviation alerting
system that meets the performance and environmental standards contained
in TSO-C92a or TSO-C92b or incorporates TSO-approved ground proximity
warning-glide slope deviation alerting equipment.
(f) No person may operate a turbojet powered airplane equipped with
a system required by paragraph (e) of this section, that incorporates
equipment that meets the performance and environmental standards of
TSO-C92b or is approved under that TSO, using other than Warning
Envelopes 1 or 3 for Warning Modes 1 and 4.
60. Section 121.380 is amended by redesignating paragraphs
(a)(2)(iii) through (a)(2)(vi) as paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) through
(a)(2)(vii), respectively; by redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as
paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively; by revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text, (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), newly redesignated paragraphs
(a)(2)(vi), (a)(2)(vii), (c)(1), and (c)(2); and by adding new
paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.380 Maintenance recording requirements.
(a) Each certificate holder shall keep (using the system specified
in the manual required in Sec. 121.369) the following records for the
periods specified in paragraph (c) of this section:
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The total time in service of the airframe.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the total
time in service of each engine and propeller.
(iii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe,
engine, propeller, and appliance.
* * * * *
(vi) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives,
including the date and methods of compliance, and, if the airworthiness
directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next
action is required.
(vii) A list of current major alterations to each airframe, engine,
propeller, and appliance.
(b) A certificate holder need not record the total time in service
of an engine or propeller on a transport category airplane that has a
passenger seat configuration of more than 30 seats or a nontransport
category airplane type certificated before January 1, 1958, until the
following, whichever occurs first:
(1) March 20, 1997; or
(2) The date of the first overhaul of the engine or propeller, as
applicable, after January 19, 1996.
(c) * * *
(1) Except for the records of the last complete overhaul of each
airframe, engine, propeller, and appliance, the records specified in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is
repeated or superseded by other work or for one year after the work is
performed.
(2) The records of the last complete overhaul of each airframe,
engine, propeller, and appliance shall be retained until the work is
superseded by work of equivalent scope and detail.
* * * * *
61. Section 121.391 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a)(2)
and (a)(3) as paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4), respectively; by revising
paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1); by adding a new paragraph
(a)(2); and by removing paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.391 Flight attendants.
(a) Each certificate holder shall provide at least the following
flight
[[Page 65934]]
attendants on each passenger-carrying airplane used:
(1) For airplanes having a maximum payload capacity of more than
7,500 pounds and having a seating capacity of more than 9 but less than
51 passengers--one flight attendant.
(2) For airplanes having a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds
or less and having a seating capacity of more than 19 but less than 51
passengers--one flight attendant.
* * * * *
62. Section 121.393 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 121.393 Crewmember requirements at stops where passengers remain
on board.
At stops where passengers remain on board, the certificate holder
must meet the following requirements:
(a) On each airplane for which a flight attendant is not required
by Sec. 121.391(a), the certificate holder must ensure that a person
who is qualified in the emergency evacuation procedures for the
airplane, as required in Sec. 121.417, and who is identified to the
passengers, remains:
(1) On board the airplane; or
(2) Nearby the airplane, in a position to adequately monitor
passenger safety, and:
(i) The airplane engines are shut down; and
(ii) At least one floor level exit remains open to provide for the
deplaning of passengers.
(b) On each airplane for which flight attendants are required by
Sec. 121.391(a), but the number of flight attendants remaining on board
is fewer than required by Sec. 121.391(a), the certificate holder must
meet the following requirements:
(1) The certificate holder shall ensure that:
(i) The airplane engines are shut down;
(ii) At least one floor level exit remains open to provide for the
deplaning of passengers; and
(iii) the number of flight attendants on board is at least half the
number required by Sec. 121.391(a), rounded down to the next lower
number in the case of fractions, but never fewer than one.
(2) The certificate holder may substitute for the required flight
attendants other persons qualified in the emergency evacuation
procedures for that aircraft as required in Sec. 121.417, if these
persons are identified to the passengers.
(3) If only one flight attendant or other qualified person is on
board during a stop, that flight attendant or other qualified person
shall be located in accordance with the certificate holder's FAA-
approved operating procedures. If more than one flight attendant or
other qualified person is on board, the flight attendants or other
qualified persons shall be spaced throughout the cabin to provide the
most effective assistance for the evacuation in case of an emergency.
Sec. 121.435 [Removed]
63. Section 121.435 is removed.
Sec. 121.455 [Amended]
64. Section 121.455 is amended by adding the words ``or operator''
after the words ``certificate holder,'' wherever they appear.
Sec. 121.457 [Amended]
65. Section 121.457 is amended by adding the words ``or operator''
after the words ``certificate holder,'' wherever they appear.
66. Section 121.463 is amended in paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) by
removing the words ``domestic or flag air carrier'' and adding, in
their place, the words ``certificate holder conducting domestic or flag
operations;'' in paragraph (d) by removing the words ``air carrier''
and adding, in their place, the words ``certificate holder;'' and by
revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.463 Aircraft dispatcher qualifications.
(a) * * *
(2) Operating familiarization consisting of at least 5 hours
observing operations under this part from the flight deck or, for
airplanes without an observer seat on the flight deck, from a forward
passenger seat with headset or speaker. This requirement may be reduced
to a minimum of 2\1/2\ hours by the substitution of one additional
takeoff and landing for an hour of flight. A person may serve as an
aircraft dispatcher without meeting the requirement of this paragraph
(a) for 90 days after initial introduction of the airplane into
operations under this part.
* * * * *
(c) No certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations
may use any person, nor may any person serve, as an aircraft dispatcher
unless within the preceding 12 calendar months the aircraft dispatcher
has satisfactorily completed operating familiarization consisting of at
least 5 hours observing operations under this part, in one of the types
of airplanes in each group to be dispatched. This observation shall be
made from the flight deck or, for airplanes without an observer seat on
the flight deck, from a forward passenger seat with headset or speaker.
The requirement of paragraph (a) of this section may be reduced to a
minimum of 2\1/2\ hours by the substitution of one additional takeoff
and landing for an hour of flight. The requirement of this paragraph
may be satisfied by observation of 5 hours of simulator training for
each airplane group in one of the simulators approved under
Sec. 121.407 for the group. However, if the requirement of paragraph
(a) is met by the use of a simulator, no reduction in hours is
permitted.
* * * * *
67. Section 121.470 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.470 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes flight time limitations and rest
requirements for domestic operations, except that:
(a) Certificate holders conducting operations with airplanes having
a passenger seat configuration of 30 seats or fewer, excluding each
crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, may
comply with the applicable requirements of Secs. 135.261 through
135.273 of this chapter.
(b) Certificate holders conducting scheduled operations entirely
within the States of Alaska or Hawaii with airplanes having a passenger
seat configuration of more than 30 seats, excluding each crewmember
seat, or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds, may comply with
the requirements of subpart R of this part for those operations.
68. Section 121.480 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.480 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes flight time limitations and rest
requirements for flag operations, except that certificate holders
conducting operations with airplanes having a passenger seat
configuration of 30 seats or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and
a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, may comply with the
applicable requirements of Secs. 135.261 through 135.273 of this
chapter.
69. Section 121.500 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.500 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes flight time limitations and rest
requirements for supplemental operations, except that certificate
holders conducting operations with airplanes having a passenger seat
configuration of 30 seats or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and
a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, may comply with the
applicable requirements of Secs. 135.261 through 135.273 of this
chapter.
[[Page 65935]]
70. Section 121.571 is amended in paragraph (a)(4) by removing the
words ``flight attendant'' and adding in their place, the word
``crewmembers;'' by adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(v); and by revising
the introductory text of paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.571 Briefing passengers before take-off.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) On operations that do not use a flight attendant, the following
additional information:
(A) The placement of seat backs in an upright position before
takeoff and landing.
(B) Location of survival equipment.
(C) If the flight involves operations above 12,000 MSL, the normal
and emergency use of oxygen.
(D) Location and operation of fire extinguisher.
* * * * *
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, before
each takeoff a required crewmember assigned to the flight shall conduct
an individual briefing of each person who may need the assistance of
another person to move expeditiously to an exit in the event of an
emergency. In the briefing the required crewmember shall--
* * * * *
71. Section 121.578(b) introductory text is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 121.578 Cabin ozone concentration.
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section,
no certificate holder may operate an airplane above the following
flight levels unless it is successfully demonstrated to the
Administrator that the concentration of ozone inside the cabin will not
exceed--
* * * * *
72. Section 121.581 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (a) and by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.581 Observer's seat: En route inspections.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, each
certificate holder shall make available a seat on the flight deck of
each airplane, used by it in air commerce, for occupancy by the
Administrator while conducting en route inspections. The location and
equipment of the seat, with respect to its suitability for use in
conducting en route inspections, is determined by the Administrator.
* * * * *
(c) For any airplane type certificated before December 20, 1995 for
not more than 30 passengers that does not have an observer seat on the
flight deck, the certificate holder must provide a forward passenger
seat with headset or speaker for occupancy by the Administrator while
conducting en route inspections. Notwithstanding the requirements of
Sec. 121.587, the cockpit door, if required, may remain open during
such inspections.
Sec. 121.583 [Amended]
73. Section 121.583(a) is amended by removing the reference to
``,121.161,.''
74. Section 121.587 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
a new paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.587 Closing and locking of flight crew compartment door.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a pilot in
command of an airplane that has a lockable flight crew compartment door
in accordance with Sec. 121.313 and that is carrying passengers shall
ensure that the door separating the flight crew compartment from the
passenger compartment is closed and locked during flight.
(b) * * *
(3) When a jumpseat is being used by persons authorized under
Sec. 121.547 in airplanes in which closing and locking the flight crew
compartment door is impossible while the jumpseat is in use.
Sec. 121.589 [Amended]
75. Section 121.589 is amended in paragraphs (b) and (c)(2) by
removing the reference ``Sec. 121.285(c) of this part'' and adding in
its place ``Sec. 121.285 (c) and (d).''
76. Section 121.590 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.590 Use of certificated land airports.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section or unless
otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no air carrier, and no pilot
being used by an air carrier may, in the conduct of operations governed
by this part, operate an aircraft into a land airport in any State of
the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or
possession of the United States, unless that airport is certificated
under part 139 of this chapter. However, an air carrier may designate
and use as a required alternate airport for departure or destination an
airport that is not certificated under part 139 of this chapter.
(b) Certificate holders conducting passenger-carrying operations
with airplanes designed for less than 31 passenger seats may operate
those airplanes into airports not certificated under part 139 of this
chapter if the following conditions are met:
(1) The airport is adequate for the proposed operation, considering
such items as size, surface, obstructions, and lighting.
(2) For an airplane carrying passengers at night, the pilot may not
take off from, or land at, an airport unless--
(i) The pilot has determined the wind direction from an illuminated
wind direction indicator or local ground communications or, in the case
of takeoff, that pilot's personal observations; and
(ii) The limits of the area to be used for landing or takeoff are
clearly shown by boundary or runway marker lights. If the area to be
used for takeoff or landing is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their
use must be approved by the Administrator.
77. Section 121.639 is amended by revising the section heading and
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
* * * * *
(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel
consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct
day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are
operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after
December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel
consumption for day VFR operations.
78. Section 121.643 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.643 Fuel supply: Nonturbine and turbo-propeller-powered
airplanes; supplemental operations.
(a) * * *
(3) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel
consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct
day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are
operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after
December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel
consumption for day VFR operations.
* * * * *
79. Section 121.703 is amended in paragraph (d) by removing the
words ``FAA Flight Standards District Office charged with the overall
inspection of the certificate holder'' and adding, in their place, the
words ``certificate-holding district office'' and by revising
paragraphs (a)(12) and (f) to read as follows:
[[Page 65936]]
Sec. 121.703 Mechanical reliability reports.
(a) * * *
(12) An unwanted landing gear extension or retraction, or an
unwanted opening or closing of landing gear doors during flight;
* * * * *
(f) A certificate holder that is also the holder of a Type
Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate), a Parts
Manufacturer Approval, or a Technical Standard Order Authorization, or
that is the licensee of a type certificate holder, need not report a
failure, malfunction, or defect under this section if the failure,
malfunction, or defect has been reported by it under Sec. 21.3 of this
chapter or under the accident reporting provisions of 14 CFR part 830.
* * * * *
80. Section 121.713 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.713 Retention of contracts and amendments: Commercial
operators who conduct intrastate operations for compensation or hire.
(a) Each commercial operator who conducts intrastate operations for
compensation or hire shall keep a copy of each written contract under
which it provides services as a commercial operator for a period of at
least 1 year after the date of execution of the contract. In the case
of an oral contract, it shall keep a memorandum stating its elements,
and of any amendments to it, for a period of at least one year after
the execution of that contract or change.
(b) Each commercial operator who conducts intrastate operations for
compensation or hire shall submit a financial report for the first 6
months of each fiscal year and another financial report for each
complete fiscal year. If that person's operating certificate is
suspended for more than 29 days, that person shall submit a financial
report as of the last day of the month in which the suspension is
terminated. The report required to be submitted by this section shall
be submitted within 60 days of the last day of the period covered by
the report and must include--
(1) A balance sheet that shows assets, liabilities, and net worth
on the last day of the reporting period;
(2) The information required by Sec. 119.35 (g)(2), (g)(7), and
(g)(8) of this chapter;
(3) An itemization of claims in litigation against the applicant,
if any, as of the last day of the period covered by the report;
(4) A profit and loss statement with the separation of items
relating to the applicant's commercial operator activities from his
other business activities, if any; and
(5) A list of each contract that gave rise to operating income on
the profit and loss statement, including the names and addresses of the
contracting parties and the nature, scope, date, and duration of each
contract.
Sec. 121.715 [Removed]
81. Section 121.715 is removed.
82. Appendix K is added to part 121 to read as follows:
Appendix K to Part 121--Performance Requirements for Certain
Turbopropeller Powered Airplanes
1. Applicability. This appendix specifies requirements for the
following turbopropeller powered airplanes that must comply with the
Airplane Performance Operating Limitations in Secs. 121.189 through
121.197:
a. After December 20, 2010, each airplane manufactured before
March 20, 1997 and type certificated in the:
i. Normal category before July 1, 1970, and meets special
conditions issued by the Administrator for airplanes intended for
use in operations under part 135 of this chapter.
ii. Normal category before July 19, 1970, and meets the
additional airworthiness standards in SFAR No. 23 of 14 CFR part 23.
iii. Normal category, and complies with the additional
airworthiness standards in appendix A of part 135 of this chapter.
iv. Normal category, and complies with section 1.(a) or 1.(b) of
SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR part 21.
b. After March 20, 1997, each airplane:
i. Type certificated prior to March 29, 1995, in the commuter
category.
ii. Manufactured on or after March 20, 1997, and that was type
certificated in the normal category, and complies with the
requirements described in paragraphs 1.a.i through iii of this
appendix.
2. Background. Sections 121.157 and 121.173(b) require that the
airplanes operated under this part and described in paragraph 1 of
this appendix, comply with the Airplane Performance Operating
Limitations in Secs. 121.189 through 121.197. Airplanes described in
Sec. 121.157(f) and paragraph 1.a of this appendix must comply on
and after December 20, 2010. Airplanes described in Sec. 121.157(e)
and paragraph 1.b of this appendix must comply on and after March
20, 1997. (Airplanes type certificated in the normal category, and
in accordance with SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR part 21, as described in
paragraph 1.a.iv of this appendix, may not be produced after October
17, 1991.)
3. References. Unless otherwise specified, references in this
appendix to sections of part 23 of this chapter are to those
sections of 14 CFR part 23, as amended by Amendment No. 23-45
(August 6, 1993, 58 FR 42156).
Performance
4. Interim Airplane Performance Operating Limitations.
a. Until December 20, 2010, airplanes described in paragraph 1.a
of this appendix may continue to comply with the requirements in
subpart I of part 135 and Sec. 135.181(a)(2) of this chapter that
apply to small, nontransport category airplanes.
b. Until March 20, 1997, airplanes described in paragraph 1.b.i
of this appendix may continue to comply with the requirements in
subpart I of part 135 of this chapter that apply to commuter
category airplanes.
5. Final Airplane Performance Operating Limitations.
a. Through an amended type certification program or a
supplemental type certification program, each airplane described in
paragraph 1.a and 1.b.ii of this appendix must be shown to comply
with the commuter category performance requirements specified in
this appendix, which are included in part 23 of this chapter. Each
new revision to a current airplane performance operating limitation
for an airplane that is or has been demonstrated to comply, must
also be approved by the Administrator. An airplane approved to the
requirements of section 1.(b) of SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR part 21, as
described in paragraph 1.a.iv of this appendix, and that has been
demonstrated to comply with the additional requirements of section
4.(c) of SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR part 21 and International Civil
Aviation Organization Annex 8 (available from the FAA, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591), will be considered
to be in compliance with the commuter category performance
requirements.
b. Each turbopropeller powered airplane subject to this appendix
must be demonstrated to comply with the airplane performance
operating limitation requirements of this chapter specified as
follows:
i. Section 23.45 Performance General.
ii. Section 23.51 Takeoff.
iii. Section 23.53 Takeoff speeds.
iv. Section 23.55 Accelerate stop distance.
v. Section 23.57 Takeoff path.
vi. Section 23.59 Takeoff distance and takeoff run.
vii. Section 23.61 Takeoff flight path.
viii. Section 23.65 Climb: All engines operating.
ix. Section 23.67 Climb: one engine inoperative.
x. Section 23.75 Landing.
xi. Section 23.77 Balked landing.
xii. Sections 23.1581 through 23.1589 Airplane flight manual and
approved manual material.
6. Operation. After compliance with the final airplane
performance operating limitations requirements has been demonstrated
and added to the Airplane Flight Manual performance data of the
affected airplane, that airplane must be operated in accordance with
the performance limitations of Secs. 121.189 through 121.197.
83. A new appendix L is added to part 121 to read as follows:
Appendix L to Part 121--Type Certification Regulations Made Previously
Effective
Appendix L lists regulations in this part that require
compliance with standards contained in superseded type certification
regulations that continue to apply to certain
[[Page 65937]]
transport category airplanes. The tables set out citations to current
CFR section, applicable aircraft, superseded type certification
regulation and applicable time periods, and the CFR edition and
Federal Register documents where the regulation having prior effect
is found. Copies of all superseded regulations may be obtained at
the Federal Aviation Administration Law Library, Room 924, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable Provisions: CFR/
Part 121 section aircraft FR references
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 121.312(a)(1)(i)............. Transport Heat release
category; or rate testing.
nontransport 14 CFR
category type 25.853(d) in
certificated effect March 6,
before January 1995: 14 CFR
1, 1965; parts 1 to 59,
passenger Revised as of
capacity of 20 January 1,
or more; 1995, and
manufactured amended by Amdt
prior to August 25-83, 60 FR
20, 1990. 6623, February
2, 1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1) in
effect August
20, 1986: 14
CFR parts 1 to
59, Revised as
of January 1,
1986.
Sec. 121.312(a)(1)(ii)............ Transport Heat release
category; or rate and smoke
nontransport testing. 14 CFR
category type 25.853(d) in
certificated effect March 6,
before January 1995: 14 CFR
1, 1965; parts 1 to 59,
passenger Revised as of
capacity of 20 January 1,
or more; 1995, and
manufactured amended by Amdt
after August 19, 25-83, 60 FR
1990. 6623, February
2, 1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1) in
effect
September 26,
1988: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1,
1988, and
amended by Amdt
25-66, 53 FR
32584, August
25, 1988
Sec. 121.312(a)(2)(i)............. Transport Provisions of 14
category; or CFR 25.853 in
nontransport effect on April
category type 30, 1972: 14
certificate CFR parts 1 to
before January 59, Revised as
1, 1965; of January 1,
application for 1972.
type certificate
filed prior to
May 1, 1972;
substantially
complete
replacement of
cabin interior
on or after May
1, 1972.
Sec. 121.312(a)(3)(i)............. Transport Heat release
category type rate testing.
certificated 14 CFR
after January 1, 25.853(d) in
1958; effect March 6,
nontransport 1995: 14 CFR
category type parts 1 to 59,
certificated Revised as of
after January 1, January 1,
1958, but before 1995; and
January 1, 1965; amended by Amdt
passenger 25-83, 60 FR
capacity of 20 6623, February
or more; 2, 1995.
substantially Formerly 14 CFR
complete 25.853(a-1) in
replacement of effect August
the cabin 20, 1986: 14
interior on or CFR parts 1 to
after March 6, 59, Revised as
1995. of January 1,
1986.
Sec. 121.312(a)(3)(ii)............ Transport Heat release
category type rate and smoke
certificated testing. 14 CFR
after January 1, 25.853(d) in
1958; effect March 6,
nontransport 1995; 14 CFR
category type parts 1 to 59,
certificated Revised as of
after January 1, January 1,
1958, but before 1995; and
January 1, 1965; amended by Amdt
passenger 25-83, 60 FR
capacity of 20 6623, February
or more; 2, 1995.
substantially Formerly 14 CFR
complete Sec. 25.853(a-
replacement of 1) in effect
the cabin September 26,
interior on or 1988: CFR,
after August 20, Title 14, Parts
1990. 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1,
1988, and
amended by Amdt
25-66, 53 FR
32584, August
25, 1988.
Sec. 121.312(b) (1) and (2)....... Transport Seat cushions.
category 14 CFR
airplane type 25.853(c)
certificated effective on
after January 1, November 26,
1958; 1984: 14 CFR
Nontransport parts 1 to 59,
category Revised as of
airplane type January 1,
certificated 1984, and
after December amended by Amdt
31, 1964. 25-59, 49 FR
43188, October
26, 1984.
Sec. 121.312(c)................... Airplane type Compartment
certificated in interior
accordance with requirements.
SFAR No. 41; 14 CFR
maximum 25.853(a) in
certificated effect March 6,
takeoff weight 1995: 14 CFR
in excess of parts 1 to 59,
12,500 pounds. Revised as of
January 1,
1995, and
amended by Amdt
25-83, 60 FR
6623, February
2, 1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a), (b-
1), (b-2), and
(b-3) in effect
on September
26, 1978: 14
CFR parts 1 to
59, Revised as
of January 1,
1978.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE
84. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40105, 40103, 44113,
44701-44705, 44707-44714, 44716-44717, and 44722.
85. The heading for 14 CFR part 125 is revised as set forth above.
86. Paragraph (b)(4) of Sec. 125.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 125.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) They are being operated under part 91 by an operator
certificated to operate those airplanes under the rules of parts 121,
135, or 137 of this chapter, they are being operated under the
applicable rules of part 121 or part 135 of this chapter by an
applicant for a certificate under part 119 of this chapter or they are
being operated by a foreign air carrier or a foreign person engaged in
common carriage solely outside the United States under part 91 of this
chapter; or
* * * * *
PART 127--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS OF SCHEDULED AIR CARRIERS
WITH HELICOPTERS [REMOVED]
87. Part 127 is removed.
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS
88. The authority citation for part 135 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 44113, 44701, 44702, 44705, 44709,
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
89. The heading for part 135 is revised to read as set forth above.
[[Page 65938]]
90. Section 135.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and by
removing and reserving paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 135.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes rules governing--
(1) The commuter or on-demand operations of each person who holds
or is required to hold an Air Carrier Certificate or Operating
Certificate under part 119 of this chapter.
(2) Each person employed or used by a certificate holder conducting
operations under this part including the maintenance, preventative
maintenance and alteration of an aircraft.
(3) The transportation of mail by aircraft conducted under a postal
service contract awarded under 39 U.S.C. 5402c.
(4) Each person who applies for provisional approval of an Advanced
Qualification Program curriculum, curriculum segment, or portion of a
curriculum segment under SFAR No. 58 of 14 CFR part 121 and each person
employed or used by an air carrier or commercial operator under this
part to perform training, qualification, or evaluation functions under
an Advanced Qualification Program under SFAR No. 58 of 14 CFR part 121.
(5) Nonstop sightseeing flights for compensation or hire that begin
and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25 statute mile
radius of that airport; however, except for operations subject to SFAR
50-2, these operations, when conducted for compensation or hire, must
comply only with Secs. 135.249, 135.251, 135.253, 135.255, and 135.353.
(6) Each person who is on board an aircraft being operated under
this part.
(7) Each person who is an applicant for an Air Carrier Certificate
or an Operating Certificate under 119 of this chapter, when conducting
proving tests.
* * * * *
91. Section 135.2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 135.2 Compliance schedule for operators that transition to part
121 of this chapter; certain new entrant operators.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to the following:
(1) Each certificate holder that was issued an air carrier or
operating certificate and operations specifications under the
requirements of part 135 of this chapter or under SFAR No. 38-2 of 14
CFR part 121 before January 19, 1996, and that conducts scheduled
passenger-carrying operations with:
(i) Nontransport category turbopropeller powered airplanes type
certificated after December 31, 1964, that have a passenger seat
configuration of 10-19 seats;
(ii) Transport category turbopropeller powered airplanes that have
a passenger seat configuration of 20-30 seats; or
(iii) Turbojet engine powered airplanes having a passenger seat
configuration of 1-30 seats.
(2) Each person who, after January 19, 1996, applies for or obtains
an initial air carrier or operating certificate and operations
specifications to conduct scheduled passenger-carrying operations in
the kinds of airplanes described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii),
or paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(b) Obtaining operations specifications. A certificate holder
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may not, after March 20,
1997, operate an airplane described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i),
(a)(1)(ii), or (a)(1)(iii) of this section in scheduled passenger-
carrying operations, unless it obtains operations specifications to
conduct its scheduled operations under part 121 of this chapter on or
before March 20, 1997.
(c) Regular or accelerated compliance. Except as provided in
paragraphs (d), (e), and (i) of this section, each certificate holder
described in paragraphs (a)(1) of this section shall comply with each
applicable requirement of part 121 of this chapter on and after March
20, 1997 or on and after the date on which the certificate holder is
issued operations specifications under this part, whichever occurs
first. Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section,
each person described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall comply
with each applicable requirement of part 121 of this chapter on and
after the date on which that person is issued a certificate and
operations specifications under part 121 of this chapter.
(d) Delayed compliance dates. Unless paragraph (e) of this section
specifies an earlier compliance date, no certificate holder that is
covered by paragraph (a) of this section may operate an airplane in 14
CFR part 121 operations on or after a date listed in this paragraph
unless that airplane meets the applicable requirement of this
paragraph:
(1) Nontransport category turbopropeller powered airplanes type
certificated after December 31, 1964, that have a passenger seating
configuration of 10-19 seats. No certificate holder may operate under
this part an airplane that is described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section on or after a date listed in paragraph (d)(1) (i), (ii), and
(iii) of this section unless that airplane meets the applicable
requirement listed in paragraph (d)(1) (i), (ii), and (iii) of this
section:
(i) December 22, 1997:
(A) Section 121.289, Landing gear aural warning.
(B) Section 121.308, Lavatory fire protection.
(C) Section 121.310(e), Emergency exit handle illumination.
(D) Section 121.337(b)(8), Protective breathing equipment.
(E) Section 121.340, Emergency flotation means.
(ii) December 20, 1999: Section 121.342, Pitot heat indication
system.
(iii) December 20, 2010:
(A) For airplanes described in Sec. 121.157(f), the Airplane
Performance Operating Limitations in Secs. 121.189 through 121.197.
(B) Section 121.161(b), Ditching approval.
(C) Section 121.305(j), Third attitude indicator.
(D) Section 121.312(c), Passenger seat cushion flammability.
(2) Transport category turbopropeller powered airplanes that have a
passenger seat configuration of 20-30 seats. No certificate holder may
operate under this part an airplane that is described in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this section on or after a date listed in this paragraph
(d) unless that airplane meets the applicable requirement listed in
this paragraph (d):
(i) December 22, 1997:
(A) Section 121.308, Lavatory fire protection.
(B) Section 121.337(b) (8) and (9), Protective breathing equipment.
(C) Section 121.340, Emergency flotation means.
(ii) December 20, 2010: Section 121.305(j), Third attitude
indicator.
(e) Newly manufactured airplanes. No certificate holder that is
described in paragraph (a) of this section may operate under part 121
of this chapter an airplane manufactured on or after a date listed in
this paragraph (e) unless that airplane meets the applicable
requirement listed in this paragraph (e).
(1) For nontransport category turbopropeller powered airplanes type
certificated after December 31, 1964, that have a passenger seat
configuration of 10-19 seats:
(i) Manufactured on or after March 20, 1997:
(A) Section 121.305(j), Third attitude indicator.
(B) Section 121.311(f), Safety belts and shoulder harnesses.
(ii) Manufactured on or after December 22, 1997: Section
121.317(a), Fasten seat belt light.
[[Page 65939]]
(iii) Manufactured on or after December 20, 1999: Section 121.293,
Takeoff warning system.
(2) For transport category turbopropeller powered airplanes that
have a passenger seat configuration of 20-30 seats manufactured on or
after March 20, 1997: Section 121.305(j), Third attitude indicator.
(f) New type certification requirements. No person may operate an
airplane for which the application for a type certificate was filed
after March 29, 1995, in 14 CFR part 121 operations unless that
airplane is type certificated under part 25 of this chapter.
(g) Transition plan. Before March 19, 1996 each certificate holder
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must submit to the FAA a
transition plan (containing a calendar of events) for moving from
conducting its scheduled operations under the commuter requirements of
part 135 of this chapter to the requirements for domestic or flag
operations under part 121 of this chapter. Each transition plan must
contain details on the following:
(1) Plans for obtaining new operations specifications authorizing
domestic or flag operations;
(2) Plans for being in compliance with the applicable requirements
of part 121 of this chapter on or before March 20, 1997; and
(3) Plans for complying with the compliance date schedules
contained in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(h) Continuing requirements. Until each certificate holder that is
covered by paragraph (a) of this section meets the specific compliance
dates listed in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, the certificate
holder shall comply with the applicable airplane and equipment
requirements of part 135 of this chapter.
(i) Delayed pilot age limitation. (1) Notwithstanding
Sec. 121.383(c) of this chapter, and except as provided in paragraph
(i)(2) of this section, a certificate holder covered by paragraph
(a)(1) of this section may use the services of a person as a pilot
after that person has reached his or her 60th birthday, until December
20, 1999. Notwithstanding Sec. 121.383(c) of this chapter, and except
as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, a person may serve as
a pilot for a certificate holder covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section after that person has reached his or her 60th birthday, until
December 20, 1999.
(2) Paragraph (i)(1) applies only to persons who were employed as
pilots by a certificate holder covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section on or before March 20, 1997.
Secs. 135.5, 135.9, 135.10, 135.11, 135.13, 135.15, and
135.17 [Removed]
92. Sections 135.5, 135.9, 135.11, 135.13, 135.15, and 135.17 are
removed.
Sec. 135.7 [Amended]
93. Section 135.7 is amended by removing ``Sec. 135.5'' wherever it
appears and adding in its place ``part 119 of this chapter''.
Sec. 135.21 [Amended]
94. Section 135.21 (b) and (f) are amended by removing ``principal
operations base'' and adding in its place ``principal base of
operations.''
Sec. 135.23 [Amended]
95. Section 135.23(a) is amended by removing the reference
``Sec. 135.37(a)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 119.69(a) of this
chapter''.
Sec. 135.27, 135.29, 135.31, 135.33, 135.35, 135.37, and
135.39 [Removed]
96. Section 135.27, 135.29, 135.31, 135.33, 135.35, 135.37, and
135.39 are removed.
97. Section 135.41 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 135.41 Carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or
stimulant drugs or substances.
If the holder of a certificate operating under this part allows any
aircraft owned or leased by that holder to be engaged in any operation
that the certificate holder knows to be in violation of Sec. 91.19(a)
of this chapter, that operation is a basis for suspending or revoking
the certificate.
Sec. 135.43 [Amended]
98. Section 135.43 is amended by:
a. Revising ``FAA Flight Standards District Office charged with the
overall inspection'' in paragraph (b) to read
``certificate-holding district office.''
b. Revising ``Flight Standards District Office'' in paragraph (c)
to read ``certificate-holding district office.''
99. Section 135.64 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 135.64 Retention of contracts and amendments: Commercial
operators who conduct intrastate operations for compensation or hire.
(a) Each commercial operator who conducts intrastate operations for
compensation or hire shall keep a copy of each written contract under
which it provides services as a commercial operator for a period of at
least one year after the date of execution of the contract. In the case
of an oral contract, it shall keep a memorandum stating its elements,
and of any amendments to it, for a period of at least one year after
the execution of that contract or change.
(b) Each commercial operator who conducts intrastate operations for
compensation or hire shall submit a financial report for the first 6
months of each fiscal year and another financial report for each
complete fiscal year. If that person's operating certificate is
suspended for more than 29 days, that person shall submit a financial
report as of the last day of the month in which the suspension is
terminated. The report required to be submitted by this section shall
be submitted within 60 days of the last day of the period covered by
the report and must include--
(1) A balance sheet that shows assets, liabilities, and net worth
on the last day of the reporting period;
(2) The information required by Sec. 119.35 (h)(2), (h)(7), and
(h)(8) of this chapter;
(3) An itemization of claims in litigation against the applicant,
if any, as of the last day of the period covered by the report;
(4) A profit and loss statement with the separation of items
relating to the applicant's commercial operator activities from his
other business activities, if any; and
(5) A list of each contract that gave rise to operating income on
the profit and loss statement, including the names and addresses of the
contracting parties and the nature, scope, date, and duration of each
contract.
Sec. 135.105 [Amended]
100. Section 135.105(a) is amended by revising the phrase ``by a
Commuter Air Carrier (as defined in Sec. 298.2 of this title) in
passenger-carrying operations'' to read ``in a commuter operation, as
defined in part 119 of this chapter.''
Sec. 135.165 [Amended]
101. Section 135.165(a) is amended by revising the phrase
``carrying passengers as a Commuter Air Carrier'' as defined in part
298 of this title,'' to read ``in a commuter operation, as defined in
part 119 of this chapter.''
102. Section 135.243(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 135.243 Pilot in command qualifications.
(a) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person
serve, as pilot in command in passenger-carrying operations--
(1) Of a turbojet airplane, of an airplane having a passenger-seat
configuration, excluding each crewmember seat, of 10 seats or more, or
of a multiengine airplane in a commuter operation as defined in part
119 of this chapter, unless that person holds an airline transport
pilot certificate with appropriate category and
[[Page 65940]]
class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that
airplane.
(2) Of a helicopter in a scheduled interstate air transportation
operation by an air carrier within the 48 contiguous states unless that
person holds an airline transport pilot certificate, appropriate type
ratings, and an instrument rating.
* * * * *
Sec. 135.244 [Amended]
103. Section 135.244(a) is amended by revising the phrase ``by a
Commuter Air Carrier (as defined in Sec. 298.2 of this title) in
passenger-carrying operations'' to read ``in a commuter operation, as
defined in part 119 of this chapter.''
Issued in Washington, D.C. on December 12, 1995.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-30545 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30517 Repeal of the Charitable Contribution Limitation Regulation
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65515-65516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30517]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD
12 CFR Part 934
[No. 95-74]
Repeal of the Charitable Contribution Limitation Regulation
AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) has
determined that the making of charitable donations is within the
corporate power of the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) and that
issues of safety and soundness to which excessive donations might give
rise can be adequately addressed through the Finance Board's FHLBank
examination process. Therefore, the Finance Board is repealing the
regulation that requires that FHLBanks obtain the approval of the Board
of Directors of the Finance Board before making charitable donations in
excess of $5,000 to one organization, or $25,000 total, during one
calendar year. The repeal of this regulation is intended to allow the
FHLBanks to use their own discretion in making such donations, subject
only to the Finance Board's power to enforce standards of safety and
soundness in FHLBank operations. This result is in keeping with the
Finance Board's continuing effort to devolve corporate governance
authority to the FHLBanks.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen E. Hancock, Assistant Director,
Office of Policy and Financial Reporting, (202) 408-2906, or Janice A.
Kaye, Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, (202) 408-2505,
Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street NW., Washington, D.C.
20006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
Section 934.11 of the Finance Board's regulations requires prior
approval of the Board of Directors of the Finance Board, or its
designee, for charitable contributions by a FHLBank that exceed $5,000
to one organization, or $25,000 in total during a calendar year. 12 CFR
934.11. As a result of an ongoing internal review of its regulations,
the Finance Board, for the reasons set forth below, has determined that
this regulation is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Finance Board is
repealing section 934.11.
The substance of section 934.11 originally appeared at section
524.11 of the regulations of the Finance Board's predecessor, the
Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). In 1959, the FHLBB promulgated a
regulation prohibiting the FHLBanks from making charitable donations.
See 12 CFR 524.11 (1959) (amended). The FHLBB had determined that a
FHLBank did not have the legal authority to make charitable donations
and, further, wanted to prevent FHLBanks from favoring some communities
in their districts over others.
In 1975, the FHLBB reconsidered its position and concluded that
charitable donations, within reasonable limits, would further the
corporate interests of the FHLBanks. See 40 FR 46302 (Oct. 7, 1975).
Therefore, the FHLBB amended
[[Page 65516]]
section 524.11 to permit a FHLBank, with the approval of its board of
directors, to make charitable donations not exceeding $1,000 to one
organization, or $5,000 in total in a calendar year. See 12 CFR 524.11
(1976) (amended). Exceptions to these annual limits required prior
approval of the FHLBB's Office of District Banks. Id.
Recognizing the effects of inflation on the dollar limits it had
set in 1975, the FHLBB in 1987 raised the annual limit on individual
donations to $5,000 and on aggregate donations to $25,000. See 52 FR
49381 (Dec. 31, 1987).
With the dissolution of the FHLBB and the establishment of the
Finance Board in 1989, see Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989, Public Law 101-73, Sec. 401, 103 Stat. 183
(Aug. 9, 1989) (codified at 12 U.S.C. 1437 note), section 524.11 was
redesignated as section 934.11 of the Finance Board's regulations. See
54 FR 36759 (Sept. 5, 1989). In 1990, the Finance Board amended section
934.11 to require prior approval of the Board of Directors of the
Finance Board, or its designee, for exceptions to the annual dollar
limitations on FHLBank charitable donations. See 55 FR 2229 (Jan. 23,
1990). Since that time, the Finance Board has routinely approved
requests from the FHLBanks for exceptions to the annual charitable
donations limitation.
II.-Analysis of the Proposed Rule
The Finance Board has determined that the general corporate powers
granted to the FHLBanks pursuant to section 12(a) of the Federal Home
Loan Bank Act (Bank Act), see 12 U.S.C. 1432(a), include the power to
make charitable donations. Section 12(a) provides that each FHLBank
``shall have all such incidental powers, not inconsistent with the
provisions of this chapter, as are customary and usual in corporations
generally.'' Id. Under the statutes and common law of most states,
corporations generally enjoy the power to make donations for
charitable, scientific, or educational purposes. See 18B Am. Jur. 2d
Corporations Section 2902 (1985). Corporations may support charities
important to the welfare of the communities in which they do business.
Id. Thus, the FHLBanks have statutory authority to make donations to
charities in the communities they serve as a ``customary and usual''
corporate power. See id.; 12 U.S.C. 1432(a). There is no statutory
provision that otherwise would require Finance Board approval of such
donations.
Because the FHLBanks have authority under the Bank Act to make
charitable donations and because the Bank Act and the regulations do
not otherwise address the issue, repeal of section 934.11 of the
Finance Board's regulations would not prevent the FHLBanks from making
such donations. In addition, the repeal of section 934.11 would not
affect Finance Board oversight of FHLBank charitable donations. The
FHLBank's statutory authority to make charitable donations still would
be subject to standards of reasonableness and financial safety and
soundness enforced by the Finance Board, as well as any other
limitations the Finance Board may decide to impose. See 12 U.S.C.
1422a(a)(3), 1422b(a)(1), 1432(a).
The Finance Board and the FHLBanks have been considering ways to
transfer a variety of governance responsibilities from the Finance
Board to the FHLBanks since the completion of studies required by the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-550, 106
Stat. 3672 (Oct. 28, 1992), which concluded that the FHLBanks should be
allowed broad discretion to manage their corporate affairs as long as
they comply with the Bank Act and Finance Board regulations. Finance
Board and FHLBank staff have identified approval of all charitable
donations as one of the governance responsibilities that should be
devolved from the Finance Board to the FHLBanks. Repeal of section
934.11 would effect the devolution of this authority.
Repeal of section 934.11 of the Finance Board's regulations also
will be consistent with the goal of the Vice President's National
Performance Review to reduce the total number of regulations of
executive agencies. See Report of the National Performance Review 32-33
(Sept. 17, 1993); E.O. 12,861, 58 FR 48255 (Sept. 14, 1993).
For the foregoing reasons, the Finance Board has determined that
section 934.11 of its regulations is no longer necessary. Accordingly,
the Finance Board has decided to repeal section 934.11 of its
regulations, pursuant to its general rulemaking authority under section
2B(a)(1) of the Bank Act. See 12 U.S.C. 1422b(a)(1).
III. Administrative Procedure Act
Because this final rule merely repeals a provision of the Finance
Board's regulations that is burdensome to the FHLBanks and will have no
adverse affect on the public, the Finance Board, for good cause, finds
that the notice and public comment procedure is unnecessary in this
instance. Therefore, for good cause shown under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
this rule is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act, as well as from the 30-day delay in the
effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Because this final rule repeals a restrictive provision of the
Board's regulations, it will not impose any regulatory requirements on
small entities. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., the Finance Board
hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Id. section
605(b).
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 934
Federal home loan banks, securities, surety bonds.
Accordingly, the Federal Housing Finance Board hereby amends
Chapter IX, Title 12, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
PART 934-OPERATIONS OF THE BANKS
1.-The authority citation for Part 934 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1422b, 1442.
Sec. 934.11 [Removed]
2.Section 934.11 is removed.
Secs. 934.12 through 934.15 [Redesignated as Secs. 934.11 through
934.14]
3.Sections 934.12 through 934.15 are redesignated as Secs. 934.11
through 934.14, respectively.
Dated: December 8, 1995.
By the Board of Directors of the Federal Housing Finance Board.
Bruce A. Morrison,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 95-30517 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6725-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30449 Air Carrier and Commercial Operator Training Programs
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65940-65950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30449]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 121 and 135
[Docket No. 27993; Amdt No. 121-250, 135-57]
RIN 2120-AC79
Air Carrier and Commercial Operator Training Programs
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the training and qualification
requirements for certain air carriers and commercial operators by
requiring certain certificate holders operating under part 135, and
permitting certain others, to comply with part 121 training, checking,
and qualification requirements, and mandating Crew Resource Management
(CRM) training requirements for part 121 and 135 operators. The FAA is
amending these rules in order to make certain part 135 training
requirements as comprehensive as part 121 requirements and to
incorporate recent knowledge about human performance factors. The rule
also allows certain part 135 certificate holders to take advantage of
sophisticated aircraft simulator training technologies presently
available to part 121 certificate holders. By increasing the training
and qualification requirements for certain operators, the rule is
intended to reduce the risk of accidents and incidents. By mandating
CRM training for certificate holders required to comply with part 121
training requirements, the rule is also intended to reduce the number
of accidents and incidents that could be attributed to a lack of crew
communication and coordination.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Larry Youngblut, Project Development Branch (AFS-240), Air
Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-8096.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of the Rule
Any person may obtain a copy of this rule by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs,
Attention: Public Inquiry Center (APA-230), 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Requests must
identify the amendment number and title of this rule.
Background
Parts 121 and 135 of Title 14 of the code of Federal Regulations
contain rules that specify training program requirements for air
carriers and certain commercial operators. Those rules specify the
qualification requirements of crewmembers, flight and simulator
instructors, check airmen, aircraft dispatchers, and other operations
personnel. The most detailed and rigorous training and qualification
requirements are those contained in subparts N and O of part 121.
Although subparts N and O have been amended a number of times in recent
years, most of the amendments concern the use of simulators, training
devices, or specific training requirements such as security and the
transportation of hazardous materials. No comprehensive changes have
been made to these subparts since December 1969.
The FAA's most immediate concerns regarding the training and
qualification regulations in part 121 and part 135 are twofold. First,
compared to part 121 training regulations, part 135 training
regulations do not provide a balanced mix of training and checking.
Part 121 training and qualification regulations require both recurrent
training as well as recurrent flight checks. Although part 135 requires
flight training, flight checks can be repeatedly substituted for
required training. Second, current parts 121 and 135 training
regulations do not incorporate recent knowledge about the significance
of human performance factors (e.g., communication, decision-making,
leadership, management), generally referred to as crew resource
management (CRM), in safe flight operations.
In December, 1986, in response to a safety recommendation from the
national Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the FAA specifically
addressed the human factors training issue by initiating an aviation
behavioral technology program. This ongoing program consists of
projects that, among other things, increase the use of line operational
simulations (LOS) i.e. simulator training using a typical operational
passenger flight scenario, in a controlled training environment
designed to improve cockpit/cabin communication and coordination
skills, and pilot decision-making skills.
In June, 1988, the NTSB issued safety recommendation A-88-71
concerning CRM training, as a result of a Northwest Airlines crash on
August 16, 1987, in which 148 passengers, 6 crewmembers, and 2 people
on the ground were killed. The NTSB noted that both pilots had received
training only as individuals and not as an integral part of the cockpit
crew during their last simulator training and proficiency checks. The
last CRM training they had each received was 3.5 hours of ground school
of general CRM training in 1983. The NTSB implied that the accident
might have been prevented had the flight crew received adequate CRM
training.
After soliciting ideas from other government agencies and from the
aviation community, the FAA published a proposed Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) and an accompanying draft advisory circular
(AC) in the Federal Register (54 FR 7670, February 22, 1989). These
documents proposed a voluntary, alternative method of complying with
the training requirements in current regulations. The voluntary
alternative training is called an ``advanced qualification program''
(AQP). After considering comments received, the FAA issued a final SFAR
58, Advanced Qualification Program, and an accompanying Advisory
Circular 120-54 (55 FR 40262, October 2, 1990). This voluntary program
applies to certificate holders operating under part 121 or part 135
that elect the alternative requirements of AQP. The alternative
requirement includes CRM training and evaluation, increased use of LOS,
use of training centers, and the evaluation of flight training devices
and flight simulators.
[[Page 65941]]
To date, the larger and more sophisticated air carriers have taken
advantage of the voluntary program. The FAA expects this to be the case
for the foreseeable future. However, the FAA recognizes that some
operators, particularly smaller operators, may elect not to participate
in the voluntary AQP program and will instead comply with current
training requirements in parts 121 and 135; therefore, the FAA is
amending the current training requirements of parts 121 and 135 to
address the most immediate concerns regarding improved aircrew training
and qualification standards. In particular, all certificate holders
operating under part 121, and those certificate holders operating under
part 135 who are authorized or required under this final rule to follow
part 121 training and qualification requirements, are now also required
by this rule to include CRM in their training programs.
Another recommendation from the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) was that commuter air carriers conducting operations under
part 135 with airplanes that require two pilot crewmembers should also
be required to comply with the training, checking, and qualification
requirements of part 121.
Many regional air carriers operate under both a part 121 and a part
135 certificate because of the type of airplanes they fly. The FAA has
encouraged these regional air carriers to train and qualify their
pilots under part 121 rather than maintaining two separate training
programs. Several of these air carriers have voluntarily required their
pilots to be trained, checked, and qualified under part 121 or its
equivalent.
The Rule
General Applicability
The amendments to part 121 apply to all certificate holders
operating under part 121 and to all certificate holders operating under
part 135 that are required to comply with the part 121 training and
qualification requirements. The requirements also apply to certain part
135 certificate holders if they request and receive FAA authorization
to comply with the part 121 training and qualification requirements.
Commuter Operations Conducted Under Part 135
Part 135 commuter operations serving small and medium sized
communities carry millions of passengers every year. The Regional
Airline Association (RAA), whose membership consists primarily of
commuter air carriers, estimates that more than 61 million passengers
will be carried by RAA member airlines in 1997. Comprehensive training
requirements, including CRM training, are important to the safety of
these operations. Part 121 training benefits these operations because
it provides more emphasis on training, whereas current part 135 rules
rely more heavily on the testing and checking requirements set forth in
subparts G and H of part 135. Part 121 also allows greater use of
simulators which results in two benefits:
(1) Under Sec. 121.407(c), simulator training can be substituted
for repetitive proficiency checks (Sec. 121.441) and certain recency
requirements (Sec. 121.439). This allows for greater flexibility and a
more effective mix of training and checking activities.
(2) Simulator training may include hazardous scenarios that would
be imprudent to include in inflight training. Thus simulator training
increases pilot proficiency in dealing with such situations.
Because subparts N and O emphasize both periodic simulator training
and checking programs rather than the continuous checking and testing
emphasis of subparts E, G, and H of part 135, this final rule requires
the following certificate holders conducting commuter operations under
part 135 to comply with the training, checking, and qualification
requirements of part 121, subparts N and O, in place of the
requirements of subparts E, G, and H of part 135: (1) Those that
conduct commuter operations with airplanes for which two pilots are
required by aircraft type certification rules, and (2) those that
conduct commuter operations with airplanes having a passenger seating
configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of 10 seats or more.
This final rule also allows the Administrator to authorize any
other certificate holders that conduct operations under part 135 to
comply with the training, checking, and qualification requirements of
subparts N and O part 121. However, because of the size and complexity
of the airplanes and the number and length of the flights conducted by
these certificate holders, the FAA will permit these certificate
holders to comply lower number of hours of operating experience under
part 135 rather than those hours specified in Sec. 121.434.
Each part 135 certificate holder that will comply with part 121
training requirements is required to submit and obtain FAA approval of
a transition plan for converting from part 135 to the part 121 training
and checking requirements. In that plan, the certificate holder should
address issues such as: (1) Whether currently employed crewmembers need
additional training to meet minimum part 121 training and qualification
requirements; and (2) how the certificate holder's training curriculum
will be modified, if necessary, to meet part 121 requirements.
Under Sec. 121.405(g), as revised herein, a certificate holder may
request a reduction in the programmed hours of ground training from the
minimum hours required under present Sec. 121.419. A reduction may be
warranted in cases where a certificate holder shows that the airplanes
it operates under part 135 are less complex than those generally
operated under part 121. For this reason, certain part 135 certificate
holders may have to modify their training program.
Crew Resource Management (CRM) Training
A major objective of this rule is to require all certificate
holders operating under part 121 and those part 135 certificate holders
who must comply with subparts N and O of part 121 as a result of this
final rule to provide CRM training.
CRM training teaches crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers to use
effectively all resources available to the crew (e.g. hardware,
software, and all persons involved in aircraft operation) to achieve
safe and efficient flight operations. Sections 121.404, 121.419(a)(1),
121.421(a)(1), 121.422(a)(1), and 121.427(b)(4) provide for the
approval of CRM training and require CRM to be incorporated into ground
training for flight crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers. Also, as part
of this amendment, part 135 certificate holders who conduct training
under part 121 must provide CRM training as part of their approved
training programs.
The FAA anticipates that for a CRM training program to be approved,
it would include three distinct components: (1) An indoctrination/
awareness component, often called ``initial CRM training,'' during
which CRM issues are defined and discussed; (2) a recurrent practice
and feedback component during which trainees gain experience with CRM
techniques; and (3) a continuing reinforcement component which ensures
that CRM principles are addressed throughout the trainee's employment
with the certificate holder. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-51B, as
amended, ``Crew Resource Management Training,'' and AC 121-32,
``Dispatch Resource Management'' provide basic guidance in establishing
approved CRM training. (In this amendment, the term ``CRM'' includes
both crew resource
[[Page 65942]]
management and dispatcher resource management.) DOT/FAA/RD-92-26,
``Crew Resource Management: An Introductory Handbook,'' goes into
further detail.
Section 121.404 includes initial CRM training for persons already
employed by the certificate holder, and for new employees of the
certificate holder, unless a new employee has completed the applicable
initial CRM training from another certificate holder. The FAA
anticipates that this component will be very similar for all
certificate holders.
CRM initial indoctrination/awareness training is a curriculum
segment with a variety of instructional methods, which can include
lectures, discussions, films, practice in an operational setting or a
line operational simulation (LOS) session, and feedback with a
facilitator. CRM initial indoctrination/awareness training must be
provided to all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers; this training is
in addition to existing training. Under Sec. 121.406, the FAA may
credit some crew resource management or dispatcher resource management
(CRM/DRM) training received before the compliance date in the rule.
Some operators have been providing CRM/DRM training under AQP or under
voluntary programs. In appropriate circumstances, the FAA may credit
part or all of such training toward the initial ground CRM/DRM training
which is required by Secs. 121.419, 121.421, and 121.422.
The recurrent practice and feedback component of CRM training is
best accomplished through the use of simulators and video equipment.
However, if the use of simulators is not practical, CRM scenarios can
be created without simulators, and practice can be tape recorded to
provide feedback. Feedback should be directed by a facilitator who has
had appropriate CRM training. Practice and feedback provide
participants with critiques by one's self and peers to improve
communication, decision-making, and leadership skills.
Numerous comments concerning requiring minimum program hours for
CRM training were submitted. Regarding these comments, the FAA has
determined that specifying a minimum number of programmed hours for CRM
training is not required. Rather, the FAA will consider instructional
techniques, number of students in a class, the use of simulation, new
training technology, the use of student feedback, the measurement of
training outcomes, as well as the number of hours of training time in
evaluating and approving CRM training programs.
Many certificate holders already have approved CRM programs that
are highly effective. The number of hours in these programs vary,
however, the FAA's experience with these highly successful CRM training
programs indicates that the most effective programs contain
approximately 12 hours for pilot initial CRM training and 8 hours for
flight attendant initial CRM training. Recurrent training under these
established programs contain approximately 4 hours for pilots and
flight engineers and 2 hours for flight attendants and aircraft
dispatchers. In this final rule, the increase in minimum programmed
hours for initial and recurrent training as proposed in Notice 94-35
(59 FR 64272, December 13, 1994) has been removed. The FAA will
consider each certificate holder's CRM training program based on the
program's ability to reach the training objectives rather than
requiring minimum programmed hours for this training.
Editorial Clarification
The change to Sec. 121.135(b)(15) makes it clear that the
certificate holder's manual must include the entire training program
curriculum required under Sec. 121.403, not just the program affecting
airmen.
Effective Date and Compliance Dates
The FAA has established an effective date of March 19, 1996. By
that date, certificate holders operating under part 135 who are
required to comply with applicable part 121 training and qualification
requirements, must submit the transition plan required under
Sec. 135.3. The compliance date for training and qualifying under part
121 rules is 1 year after the effective date of the final rule.
For initial CRM training, the FAA has established a compliance date
2 years after the effective date of the final rule for flight
crewmembers, and 3 years after the effective date of the final rule for
flight attendants and aircraft dispatchers. After the applicable date,
a certificate holder is prohibited from using a crewmember or
dispatcher unless that person has completed approved crew or dispatcher
resource management initial training. Since a large number of
certificate holder employees are required to have this training, the
delayed compliance dates will allow sufficient time to train
instructors conducting CRM training, and then, in turn, provide this
training to all crewmembers and dispatchers.
Consideration of Comments to the NPRM
On December 13, 1994, the FAA proposed these changes in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking 94-35 (59 FR 64272). Seventeen comments were
received. The following is a discussion and the FAA's response to the
substantive subject areas.
Improvements in Safety
Comment: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) strongly
supports this proposal. The Board believes that the proposal is
responsive to a number of their safety recommendations regarding
previously noted shortcomings in the human factors aspects of
flightcrew performance. It specifically cites and supports the greater
use of flight simulators, and actions taken to improve pilot operating
experience in scheduled air carriers. The Board believes that the
adoption of this proposal will contribute significantly toward
improving the level of safety in commuter airline operations as well as
major air carriers.
FAA Response: The FAA welcomes the comments of the NTSB, and has
given them due consideration in the development of this final rule.
Crew Resource Management Training Program Content
Comments: A number of commenters address the proposed requirement
to add a specific number of training hours to be devoted specifically
to CRM training.
USAIR Express comments that it supports the addition of CRM, but
the hours stated in the regulation should be planned hours rather than
programmed hours, indicating that this would provide more flexibility
depending on class size. Also, all the training should be proficiency
based. Pilot initial training should be 8 hours; 6 hours for flight
attendants and dispatchers.
An individual commenter states that he supports the addition of CRM
training to the training curriculum and recommends a requirement for at
least 5 hours of full motion simulator CRM training for both initial
and recurrent training, in addition to 24 classroom hours of initial
training. Recurrent CRM training should be conducted annually and
include 16 classroom hours.
The Air Line Pilots' Association (ALPA) recommends that the
programmed times stated in the NPRM should be considered minimums on
which to build a comprehensive CRM training program.
The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions provides a joint comment
for a
[[Page 65943]]
number of flight attendant associations and concurs with the
requirement of 8 hours for initial flight attendant training, but
recommends an additional 2 hours be added to recurrent training,
raising the requirement from 12 to 14 hours.
The Air Transport Association recommends that the FAA use a ``train
to proficiency'' concept rather than specifying a certain number of
hours for CRM training. This training should be integrated into other
appropriate training.
Flight Safety International comments that the training should be
``objective based'' rather than specifying ``block hours.''
United Airlines (UAL) comments that it is in complete agreement
with the proposal, except requiring programed hours. UAL states that
``the notion of programmed hours is bankrupt and that no training
professional judges the adequacy of a training program by the number of
hours spent on a given subject.''
The Regional Airline Association recommends removing the ``hard
time'' requirement of a specific number of hours for CRM training and
instead recommends that CRM training be integrated into the operator's
existing training program in an appropriate manner.
FAA Response: As stated previously, the FAA has removed the
requirement for minimum programmed hours for approved CRM training
programs. The FAA agrees that CRM training should be objective-based
rather than based on a specific number of required hours. Therefore, in
complying with this final rule, each individual certificate holder's
CRM training program will be evaluated on its design to reach its
stated training objectives. In evaluating CRM training programs, the
FAA will consider how these training objectives are met and how the
certificate holder measures training outcomes. The FAA will consider
instructional techniques, class size, the use of simulation, new
training technology, overall quality of training, and most importantly,
student/instructor feedback and other evaluation methods in determining
the adequacy of CRM training programs. The FAA also agrees that the
principles of CRM should be integrated into other appropriate training
and that these principles be practiced routinely throughout other
company flight operations.
Comment: The Department of Psychology of the University of Texas at
Austin supports the proposal to add CRM training to the rule. However,
they state that CRM training must be designed to the specific needs of
the airline and its operating environment and that an evaluation of the
human factors training must be included in each certificate holder's
approved CRM program.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenter that CRM training
programs should be designed to meet the specific needs of the
certificate holder's operating environment and that a continuing
assessment of the CRM training program should be accomplished to
determine if the program is achieving its goals. Information on
designing CRM programs that are specific to the needs of the
certificate holder and its operating environment and the evaluation of
the CRM training program are included in AC 120-51B. Also,
Sec. 121.405(d) allows the training program to be tailored to the
individual operator.
Comment: USAIR Express comments that initial new-hire CRM training
should be differentiated from initial, transition, and upgrade
requirements. CRM training should also be integrated into other
training rather than being a separate module in the general subjects
section.
FAA Response: USAir Express states that initial new hire CRM
training should differ from other CRM training. The FAA agrees that CRM
training needs to be tailored to the needs of those being trained and
guidance is provided on this subject in AC 120-51B. The FAA also agrees
that CRM training principles should be incorporated into all the
certificate holder's training. However, the principles of CRM must be
learned first before they can be integrated into the certificate
holder's entire operation.
Comment: An individual commenter recommends that CRM training be
conducted for at least 3 hours in a full motion simulator.
FAA Response: Training in a full motion simulator would provide
excellent training; however the FAA believes that mandating CRM
training in a ``full motion'' simulator is not necessary to learn and
practice CRM skills.
Comment: The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions mentions that
there is no provision to address giving or denying credit for training
already accomplished if the employee changes carriers, for example,
moving from a regional carrier to the parent carrier. The group also
proposes rewriting Sec. 121.421 (iii) to include wording from AC 120-
51B which would ensure a minimum level of quality control.
FAA Response: Section 121.404 as adopted in this final rule
provides that a flight attendant who receives initial training from one
certificate holder does not have to repeat that training for another
certificate holder.
The FAA does not agree with the commenter that the regulation as
proposed should be rewritten to include the three CRM training phases
as discussed in AC 120-51B, i.e., initial indoctrination and awareness,
practice and feedback, and evaluation phases. An approved CRM training
program should include the training objectives stated in the AC.
However, the FAA believes there is more than one way to achieve these
training objectives. Each certificate holder must determine the most
practical and efficient way to meet the general training criteria
stated in AC 120-51B.
Comment: The Air Transport Association (ATA) recommends
reorganizing some of the proposed sections, generally consolidating
them into other sections of the proposed rule; and provides a detailed
rewrite of the Sec. 121.423.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that the rule language should
be rewritten under a new Sec. 121.423, since it appears that ATA's
rewrite basically provides training credit for CRM training received
after the effective date of this final rule; this credit is already
provided in Sec. 121.406 which will be adopted as proposed.
Comment: Flight Safety International recommends that the rule
include the requirement for assessment, design, and implementation of
the CRM training program. The commenter provided a detailed discussion
how to improve each of these facets.
FAA Response: The comments of Flight Safety International regarding
the requirement for assessment, design and implementation of the CRM
training program have merit and are addressed in AC 120-51B.
Comment: The Regional Airline Association generally supports the
rule but recommends that the rule include specific reference to part
121, Appendices E, F, and H, and the record keeping requirements of
Sec. 121.683.
FAA Response: The FAA does not concur regarding the recommendation
that the rule include specific reference to Appendices E, F, and H,
which elaborate on flight maneuvers. The certificate holder may include
CRM while training on flight maneuvers, but the FAA does not want to
limit or mandate CRM during each specific training maneuver. Also, the
FAA believes that the detailed record keeping requirements of
Sec. 135.63 are more than adequate for affected part 135 operators.
[[Page 65944]]
Comment: One individual commenter believes that CRM could not be
defined; to attempt to do so, ``goes exactly against the spirit of
CRM.'' Instead, he felt that the fightcrew should pursue ``a
spontaneous program of people trying to discover ways to relate more
harmoniously.'' Therefore, any effort to formalize CRM training was
counterproductive.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with this commenter. CRM
skills can be learned and improved by both formal training and the
informal integration of CRM skills into the certificate holder's
organizational culture.
Scope of CRM Training
Comment: One individual commenter and one professional association
note that maintenance technicians were not addressed in the notice and
recommend that there should be a proposed change to part 66 mandating
CRM for maintenance technicians.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the comment. However, including
maintenance technicians in this rule is outside the scope of the NPRM.
Comments: A number of commenters address the issue of the
importance of the training given to those who are responsible to
approve, conduct, and evaluate CRM training.
The Department of Psychology of the University of Texas at Austin
feels that there should be provisions for specialized training of check
pilots, flight instructors, and FAA Flight Standards personnel who must
not only be aware of the concepts of CRM, but also must be able to
debrief and instruct others in the facets of the program. The commenter
also suggests that CRM principles and requirements be included in the
airline's flight manuals.
USAIR Express comments that the FAA's Principal Operations
Inspectors must be trained in detail to effectively assess and evaluate
CRM training programs; otherwise, operators may have difficulty getting
curriculum segments approved or getting credit for previously conducted
training.
ALPA notes that the facilitators of CRM training must have the
highest experience and qualifications to properly evaluate this
training.
Flight Safety International emphasizes that instructors and check
pilots need specialized training in CRM observation and debriefing
skills.
The Regional Airline Association notes that FAA inspectors who are
responsible for evaluating, approving, and monitoring the effectiveness
of the operator's CRM programs will need additional training for this
responsibility.
The Air Transport Association comments that the FAA should ensure
that the inspectors who evaluate this program must be highly trained.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with all these commenters. In addition
to establishing a training course for POIs, the FAA has included
information in the air carrier inspectors' handbook and AC 120-51B that
provides guidance in the approval process. This information is also
available to instructors and check pilots.
Compliance Period
Comments: The Department of Psychology of the University of Texas
at Austin comments that the compliance period of 2 years for flight
crews and 3 years for dispatchers and flight attendants seemed
excessive and should be shortened.
The group of flight attendant associations recommends that the
proposed compliance period of 2 years for pilots, and 3 years for
flight attendants and dispatchers, be shortened to 1 year and 2 years
respectively, based on the significance of the rule to the traveling
public and its ease of implementation.
ALPA fully supports the proposal and strongly urges the FAA to
implement the final rule at the earliest opportunity.
FAA Response: The FAA has adopted a compliance period of 2 years
for over 76,000 flight crewmembers and 3 years for over 84,000 flight
attendants and dispatchers who require initial CRM training. The FAA
encourages certificate holders to develop an approved CRM training
program and begin training as soon as possible. However, the FAA
believes that to require total compliance in a shorter time than
proposed could be a significant economic burden on some certificate
holders because training would then have to be accomplished outside the
normal, scheduled recurrent training cycle.
Comment Period
Comment: The Alaska Air Carriers' Association suggests extending
the comment period to June 23, 1995 to be aligned with another proposal
affecting commuter airlines in the area of aircraft certification and
general operations.
FAA Response: This action is one in a series of on-going actions to
improve the safety of commuter airlines. The effect of this rule is
referenced in the recently published NPRM titled Commuter Operations
and General Certification and Operations Requirements (60FR16230, March
29, 1995). However, the provisions of this rule are not significantly
affected by the other actions proposed in subsequent NPRM's Therefore,
this notice will be finalized with due consideration given to all
comments received in the current comment period.
Economics
Comment: The Office of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S.
Small Business Administration believes that the FAA overestimated the
benefits of CRM training for part 135 operators, mainly citing the
belief that CRM training would not be 100% effective. Also, the
commenter questions the FAA's position that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Comment: A group of flight attendant associations comments on the
estimated cost of initial and recurrent CRM training for flight
attendants, providing training costs and per diem information on nine
representative carriers.
Comment: The National Air Transport Association expresses concern
that, for all part 135 operators who operate aircraft with two pilot
crews carrying 10 or more passengers, the proposal may be
administratively and economically burdensome. Therefore the Association
opposes the FAA proposal to mandate compliance with part 121 training
standards. It feels that compliance with part 121 training, including
CRM, should be voluntary for part 135 commuter carriers operating
aircraft with 10 to 19 seats.
FAA Response: The FAA has reviewed the commenter's points and
addressed them in the Regulatory Evaluation of the final rule.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
This section summarizes the full regulatory evaluation that
provides more detailed estimates of the economic consequences of this
regulatory action. This summary and the full evaluation quantify, to
the extent practicable, estimated costs and anticipated benefits to the
private sector, consumers, and Federal, State, and local governments.
Proposed changes to federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effect of regulatory changes on international
[[Page 65945]]
trade. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
Final Rule would generate benefits that justify its costs and is a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order.
The FAA estimates that the Final Rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No part of
the rule is expected to constitute a barrier to international trade.
These analyses are provided in the docket and are summarized below.
Response to Comments on the Original Regulatory Evaluation
Two interested parties submitted comments concerning the
preliminary regulatory evaluation. Their comments and FAA's disposition
are summarized below by subject area.
Wages
Comment: The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions states that the
$27 hourly compensation rate used for part 121 flight attendants seems
``excessive.''
FAA Response: In response to this comment, the FAA recalculated the
hourly compensation rate for part 121 flight attendants based on the
Future Aviation Professionals of America's (FAPA) 1994-1995 Flight
Attendant Directory of Employers & Salary Survey. These data support
the $27 hourly compensation rate for flight attendants who have been
employed for 5 years.
Initial Training
Comment: The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions states that air
carriers do not typically pay or provide benefits to flight attendants
during initial training because the trainees are not yet employees.
According to the commenter, the provision of lodging and meals during
initial training varies among carriers. Many carriers will pay for
lodging, some will pay for meals, some provide a small stipend, and
some do not defray meal costs at all.
FAA Response: While the FAA agrees that airlines do not necessarily
assume the full cost, the agency believes it is appropriate to consider
the costs to others including the flight attendants themselves. The FAA
believes that if a flight attendant were not attending a training
session, the flight attendant would most likely be working at another
job earning a wage rate comparable to that of a first year flight
attendant. Accordingly, the FAA has calculated costs based on the full
hourly compensation rate. The FAA estimates that a first year flight
attendant earns hourly compensation of $18.00 for part 135 operators
and $20 for part 121 operators. The FAA also estimates that flight
attendant training will cost $125 per day for meals and lodging
regardless of whether the operator or flight attendant absorbs these
costs.
Recurrent Training
Comment: The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions states that
compensation during recurrent training varies among carriers. Some
carriers pay no salary during training, while others pay a contractual
level substantially below the working flight attendant rate, according
to the commenter. Also, some carriers pay per diem while other do not.
This commenter provided a brief summary of flight attendant training
costs for selected major, national, and regional air carriers.
FAA Response: After reviewing this comment, the FAA has decided to
use the compensation rate for a fifth-year flight attendant to compute
the compensation rate for recurrent training ($23 for part 135 and $27
for part 121). Based on the discussion above, the evaluation assumes
that flight attendants are compensated at their hourly flight rate. Per
diem is estimated at $125, regardless of whether the airline or the
flight attendant absorbs this cost.
Training Hours
Comment: The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions states that,
based on experience, reductions in training hours are routinely
requested and are nearly as routinely granted. The commenter concludes
that, following approval of credits and reductions, this rule could
result in some carriers absorbing hourly requirements of CRM initial
and recurrent training into existing initial and recurrent training
programs.
FAA Response: The FAA recognizes this concern, but for purposes of
this regulatory evaluation, the cost estimate is based on the average
number of planned hours on which established programs are based. For
some operators, therefore, such costs may be overstated.
CRM Training Benefits
Comment: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) states that
the FAA overestimated the benefits of CRM training for part 135
operators. The SBA states that the FAA assumed that such training would
be 100 percent successful in eliminating accidents attributable at
least in part to coordination problems. The SBA believes that this is
an overly optimistic scenario and encourages the FAA to examine the
accident rate of operators who already have CRM programs and use it as
the basis for estimating benefits of the training.
The SBA further encourages the FAA to confirm whether the accident
rate for part 135 operators resulting from crew coordination problems
includes only accidents involving the types of aircraft affected by the
rule. According to the commenter, the FAA did not specify whether the
accidents involved were the types of part 135 aircraft subject to the
rule. In contrast, in estimating the benefits of raising part 135
training to part 121 levels, the FAA specified that the accidents
involving part 135 aircraft were of the type affected by the proposal.
If the accident rate included part 135 aircraft other than the types
covered by the proposed regulation, then the FAA would overestimate the
proposal's benefits. For an accurate assessment of CRM's benefits, the
FAA must confirm that the accident data used for estimating CRM's
benefits is limited to the types of planes covered by the proposal for
part 135 operators.
FAA Response: With respect to the comment on effectiveness, the FAA
does not expect the rule to be 100 per cent effective. Based on our
calculations, the part 135 CRM requirements need to reap only 4 per
cent of the estimated benefits to be cost beneficial. The commenter is
correct with respect to the accidents included. The final regulatory
evaluation has been changed to consider only those accidents involving
aircraft affected by this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Comment: The SBA states that the proposal's regulatory flexibility
analysis is not in conformance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA). First, according to the commenter, the FAA did not provide the
public with the opportunity to assess the FAA's justification for its
criteria for evaluating the significance of a rule's economic impacts.
Second, the FAA did not adhere to the procedures for establishing a
small business definition different from the definition under Sec. 3 of
the Small Business Act. Prior to issuing a final rule, the FAA must
make publicly available the development process it used for deriving
the threshold criteria for judging the significance of the proposed
regulation's economic impact on small entities. The FAA must also
consult with the SBA on the use of its alternative small business
definition and ask for public comment on the appropriateness of the
alternative definition.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with this comment. The FAA
extensively coordinated the subject criteria and definitions with the
appropriate agencies. In 1982, the FAA
[[Page 65946]]
published in the Federal Register (47 FR 32825, July 29, 1982) an
invitation for public comment on proposed definitions of small
entities. At the time, the FAA also provided to the SBA materials on
the proposed alternative definitions.
Costs
Part 121 Equivalent Training for Part 135 Crewmembers
The rule requires 121 training and qualification standards for part
135 crewmembers engaged in operations using airplanes certificated for
two pilots or having 10 or more passenger seats. Newly hired part 135
pilots and flight attendants will be required to receive the initial
part 121 training. Existing part 135 pilots and flight attendants will
not need to repeat initial training but will be subject to recurrent
training requirements. During their first recurrent training session,
however, existing employees must meet the newly required part 121
training and qualifying standards.
Incremental training costs were determined as the difference
between current and projected training costs. For example, the
incremental cost of initial training was estimated to be $3,999 for a
PIC and was determined by adding pilot compensation, travel and per
diem, and other costs and subtracting current costs.
Initial training costs for PICs, SICs, and flight attendants will
increase by about $230,000 per year. The cost for first year recurrent
training for flight crewmembers will increase by $1.3 million because
each currently employed crewmember will be required to meet the part
121 training and qualification standards. The cost for recurrent
training after the first year will increase by $1.75 million.
The discounted incremental cost to part 135 operators over the ten
year period is estimated to be about $17 million.
Part 121 CRM Training
The number of PICs, SICs, and flight engineers undergoing training
during the two-year phase-in period equals 65 percent of the existing
number of employees plus new hires (the FAA estimates that 35 percent
of pilots are already receiving CRM training through the AQP). The cost
for the initial two-year phase-in training will be approximately $7.5
million each year. The cost for initial CRM training after the phase-in
period (which applies to new hires only) will be approximately $2
million. Recurrent training costs for existing employees will be about
$17 million annually.
The number of flight attendants and dispatchers undergoing training
during the three-year phase-in period equals the existing number of
employees plus new hires. For flight attendants and dispatchers,
initial training over the three-year phase-in period will cost about $4
million annually. Initial training after the third year for new hires
will amount to approximately $3.5 million annually. Recurrent training
for existing employees will cost about $6 million each year.
Over the ten-year period, the total discounted cost will equal
about $230 million.
Part 135 CRM Training
CRM awareness training for pilots for the two-year phase-in period
will cost approximately $300,000 per year. After the second year,
initial training costs will equal about $67,000 each year. Annual
recurrent training costs will be about $600,000.
Initial CRM awareness training for flight attendants will cost
about $31,000 per year. The cost for initial training conducted after
the phase-in period will equal about $12,000 annually. The annual cost
for recurrent training will be about $23,000. Over the ten year period,
discounted CRM training costs for the part 135 operators will equal
about $6 million.
Total Cost
The total discounted cost of the rule will be approximately $253
million over the next 10 years. The cost of CRM training for part 121
operators accounts for the largest portion.
Benefits
Part 135 Training Upgrade
From 1984 through 1993, the NTSB concluded that pilot error was a
probable cause of 30 accidents involving part 135 aircraft affected by
this rule. (The accidents included in this analysis involved at least a
serious injury or substantial airplane damage). Mid-air collisions and
accidents due to bad weather are excluded because the training that
will be required under this rule would not reduce those types of
accidents.
The 30 accidents were responsible for 89 fatalities and 40 serious
injuries. During this period, commuter operators flew 25.5 million
flights resulting in a commuter accident due to pilot error of 1.1775
accidents per million commuter flights. The average value of avoiding
such an accident is estimated to be $9.607 million.
In estimating the maximum potential value of the benefits, the FAA
assumes that: (1) Because part 135 operators will not complete training
for two years, no expected benefits will result after the first year
and, at most, only one-half of the potential benefits will be achieved
in the second year (full benefits will be achieved in the remaining
years); and (2) the rule will not eliminate all pilot error accidents
but will, at best, only reduce the part 135 pilot-error accident rate
down to the rate sustained by part 121 operators. However, the FAA does
not expect this rule to completely eliminate the differential in the
pilot-error accident rate because the higher part 135 accident rate
could be caused by factors other than pilot training; less pilot
experience might also result in a higher pilot-error accident rate for
part 135 operations.
The FAA estimated the value of potential benefits by multiplying
the average value of a part 135 pilot-error related accident ($9.607
million) by the number of potential accidents (accident rate times
projected flights). The value of potential benefits was then adjusted
to equal the part 121 pilot-error accident rate. The pilot-error
accident rate for part 121 airplanes was determined by conducting a
search of the part 121 accident database. The FAA determined that this
database contained 38 accidents in which pilot error was the probable
cause. Given that part 121 airplanes flew 61.55 million flights during
this period, the pilot-error accident rate is estimated to be 0.6174
accidents per million flights. By subtracting the part 121 accident
rate from the part 135 accident rate [(1.1775-0.6174)=.5601], the
available reduction in the part 135 accident rate is estimated to equal
.56 accidents per one million flights.
Over the ten-year period, the estimated value of the benefits of
this provision is about $196 million. When current practice is taken
into consideration (30 percent of relevant pilots are already trained
under part 121 under an RAA exemption), the ten-year, benefit of this
provision is estimated to be $111 million.
Part 135 Crew Resource Management Training
During the period 1984 through 1993, crew coordination was a
probable cause in 9 accidents involving part 135 aircraft affected by
this rule. The 9 accidents were responsible for 45 fatalities and 7
serious injuries. During this period, commuter operators flew 25.5
million flights resulting in a commuter accident rate due to crew
coordination problems of 0.3529 accidents per million
[[Page 65947]]
commuter flights. The average value of avoiding such an accident was
estimated to be about $15.3 million. This estimated accident cost is
considerably higher than the estimated accident cost used in the part
135 training upgrade benefit section. The difference results, in part,
from the size of the samples. Thirty accidents were attributable to
pilot error and only nine to crew coordination. The three high-cost
accidents associated with crew coordination drive up the average cost
of those accidents.
Initial training will begin in 1996 and continue through 1997.
Therefore, the FAA assumes that full benefits cannot be achieved by
this rule until 1998. The FAA estimates the value of benefits by
multiplying the average value of a part 135 CRM-related accident ($15.3
million) by the number of potential accidents (accident rate times
projected number of flights). Over the ten year period, the benefits of
this provision are estimated at $163 million (discounted). However, the
FAA expects to realize only some of these benefits by imposing this
requirement.
Part 121 Crew Resource Management Training
During the period 1984 through 1993, crew coordination was a
probable cause in 17 accidents involving part 121 aircraft. These 17
accidents resulted in 181 fatalities, 45 serious injuries, and 130
minor injuries. During this period, air carriers flew 61.55 million
flights resulting in an air carrier accident rate due to crew
coordination problems of 0.2762 accidents per million flights.
About two-thirds of the part 121 pilots will receive training
during the first year and the remaining one-third of the pilots will
complete the initial CRM training by the end of the second year. Thus,
the FAA expects reduced benefits for the first two years. The annual,
maximum potential benefits cannot be realized until 1998. The FAA
estimates the maximum potential value of benefits by multiplying the
average value of a part 121 CRM-related accident ($34.4 million) by the
number of potential accidents (accident rate times flights).
Over the ten-year period, the estimated value of the benefits of
this provision is about $305 million (discounted). Once again, the FAA
expects to realize only some of these benefits by this proposed
requirement.
Total Benefits
Benefits of this rule are estimated to total $579 million. The
largest share of benefits, about $305 million, is attributed to part
121 CRM training. Part 135 CRM training and upgraded pilot training
will account for about $163 million and $111 million, respectively.
Cost-Benefit Comparison
The FAA estimates that this rule will cost approximately $253
million over 10 years. The benefits are estimated to be $579 million.
With respect to the part 135 flight crew training upgrade, the
discounted training costs will be about $17 million, and the discounted
value of the expected benefits is $111 million. With respect to part
135 CRM training, the discounted training costs will be about $6
million, and the discounted value of the expected benefits is $163
million. With respect to part 121 CRM training, the discounted training
costs will be about $230 million, and the discounted value of the
expected benefits is $305 million.
The estimated total cost of the rule has decreased significantly
since the NPRM was published. Changes in assumptions--based on
additional information about industry practice--were primarily
responsible for the adjustments. The final analysis takes into
consideration, for example, that 35 percent of part 121 pilots are
already receiving and will continue to receive CRM training under AQP.
It also takes into account that 30 percent of the part 135 pilots--
those employed by dual-certificated operators--already train under part
121. Based on current information, the FAA has also adjusted its
assumptions about new-hire rates and the costs of travel and
instruction associated with training. In total, these adjustments lead
to a lower estimated incremental cost of this rule.
To be cost beneficial, this rule does not have to be 100 percent
effective in preventing the types of accidents that it is designed to
prevent, nor does the FAA claim that these requirements will prevent
all of the accidents for which this rule was designed. If the part 135
training upgrade is only 16 percent effective at preventing these
accidents, then the benefits of this requirement will exceed the costs.
CRM training for part 135 flight crews needs to be only 4 percent
effective for the benefits to exceed the cost of that requirement.
However, CRM training for part 121 flight crews needs to be over 75
percent effective for this requirement to be cost-beneficial.
The requirements for upgrading part 135 pilot training should be
considered complementary to the proposed Commuter Rule (while the two
CRM requirements are independent of the Commuter Rule). The goal of
both the Commuter Rule and the part 135 training upgrade requirement is
to reduce the accident rate of scheduled carriers operating 10-to-30-
seat airplanes under part 135 to the existing part 121 accident rate.
The benefits of the part 135 training upgrade requirement are part of
the benefits estimated for the Commuter Rule, and they cannot be
separated from that rule because it is not possible to determine which
rule would have prevented a given accident. For example, individual
accidents may be prevented by any one of several factors, such as
prevention of the occurrence of a problem with an airplane in the first
place, by providing more or better crew training to properly respond to
the problem after it occurs, or providing a dispatcher to help identify
a problem before it becomes a potential accident. For this reason, the
FAA has chosen to combine the estimated costs of upgrading part 135
pilot training with the cost of the Commuter Rule and compare these
combined costs with the estimated benefits of the Commuter Rule. When
the estimated cost of the part 135 pilot training upgrade requirement
($17 million) is added to the estimated costs for the Commuter NPRM
($275 million), the combined costs ($292 million) are still less than
the estimated benefits of the Commuter NPRM ($393 million). The
estimated costs and benefits will probably be different in the Commuter
Final Rule, but the estimated cost of the Commuter Final Rule plus the
$17 million for the part 135 pilot training upgrade requirement is
still expected to be less than the estimated benefits for the Commuter
Final Rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by the Government regulations. The RFA
requires agencies to review rules that may have ``a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
The rule will affect those small entities regulated by parts 121
and 135. The FAA's criterion (for documentation, see 47 FR 32825, July
29, 1982) for ``a substantial number'' is a number that is not less
than 11 and which is more than one-third of the small entities subject
to the rule. For air carriers, a small entity has been defined as one
who owns, but does not necessarily operate, 9 or fewer aircraft. The
relevant FAA criteria for ``a significant impact'' are incremental cost
of $67,800 per year for a scheduled air carrier with a fleet size of 60
seats or fewer, and $121,300 for a scheduled air carrier with a fleet
size of more than 60 seats). (All monetary values are in 1994 dollars).
[[Page 65948]]
Final Regulatory Determination
The FAA identified 39 part 121 operators who operate 9 or fewer
aircraft. In addition, the FAA identified another 9 operators who are
split certificate holders and operate under both parts 121 and 135. For
this analysis the FAA determined that the split certificate holders are
currently operating under the higher level of safety required under the
part 121 requirements. The FAA determined that, on average, the crew on
these aircraft consist of one pilot-in-command, one second-in-command,
and three flight attendants. Also, these operators will likely employ
two crews per airplane. The FAA determined that in the first year
(1996) two PICs, two SICs, and six flight attendants will receive
initial training. In the next three years (1997-1999), these
crewmembers will receive recurrent training. In the fifth year (2000),
there will be a turnover in the crew: 1 PIC, 1 SIC, and 2 flight
attendants will be replaced by new employees who will need initial
training. Over the following three years (2001-2003), all crewmembers
will receive recurrent training. The next year (2004), there will again
be a turnover in employees. And, in the final year (2005), the
crewmembers will receive recurrent training. The discounted cost over
the ten-year period for the part 121 requirements will be about $15,800
per aircraft, or about $2,250 annualized. An operator owning nine
airplanes will incur an annualized cost of about $20,252. Thus, a part
121 operator will be able to own at least nine aircraft and remain
below the annualized cost threshold of $67,800 for small scheduled
operators. The FAA has also determined that part 121 CRM training costs
will not impose a significant burden on a substantial number of large
scheduled part 121 operators which have a higher threshold of $110,100.
The FAA identified twenty part 135 scheduled operators that own 9
or fewer aircraft (which require two pilots or have 10 or more
passenger seats). The discounted cost for part 135 flight crew upgrade
and CRM training will be about $53,332, or about $7,593 annualized. Of
this amount, CRM training accounts for about $15,362 discounted, or
about $2,187 annualized, and flight crew upgrade training accounts for
$37,970 discounted, or about $5,406 annualized. This estimate is based
on an average of two crews per aircraft with each crew consisting of a
PIC, a SIC, and two flight attendants. This estimate includes initial
training and recurrent training over the ten year period. Training
costs for large scheduled part 135 operators with 9 airplanes
(9 x $7,593=$68,337) will not exceed the threshold for these operators
($121,300). However, training costs for small scheduled part 135
operators with more than 8 aircraft will exceed the threshold cost
(8 x $7,593=$60,744). FAA data show that only one of the 20 affected
small part 135 operators operate nine aircraft. As this number is less
than 11, it does not meet the definition of a ``substantial number.''
Therefore, the FAA has determined that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small part 135
operators.
International Trade Impact Statement
The FAA has determined that this rule will not constitute barriers
to international trade, including the export of U.S. goods and services
to foreign countries and the import of foreign goods and services into
the United States.
Federalism Implications
These regulations do 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
various levels of government. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order
12612, it is determined that such a regulation does not have federalism
implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The reporting and recordkeeping requirement associated with this
rule was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in
accordance with 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; there are no changes associated
with the paperwork burden of this rule. Therefore, the burden
associated with this rule stands cleared under OMB control number 2120-
0591.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth under the heading ``Regulatory
Analysis,'' the FAA has determined that this regulation: (1) Is a
significant rule under Executive Order 12866; and (2) is a significant
rule under Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). Also, for the reasons
stated under the headings ``Trade Impact Statement'' and ``Regulatory
Flexibility Determination,'' the FAA certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A copy of the full regulatory evaluation is filed in the
docket and may also be obtained by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Air safety, Air transportation,
Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Narcotics, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
14 CFR Part 135
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Air taxis, Air transportation,
Airworthiness, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety.
The Amendment
The Federal Aviation Administration amends parts 121 and 135 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations [14 CFR parts 121 and 135] as follows:
PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS; DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE
AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for Part 121 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40105, 40113, 44701-44702,
and 44704-44705.
2. Section 121.135(b)(15) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.135 Contents.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(15) Each training program curriculum required by Sec. 121.403.
* * * * *
3. Section 121.404 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.404 Compliance dates: Crew and dispatcher resource management
training.
After March 19, 1998, no certificate holder may use a person as a
flight crewmember, and after March 19, 1999, no certificate holder may
use a person as a flight attendant or aircraft dispatcher unless that
person has completed approved crew resource management (CRM) or
dispatcher resource management (DRM) initial training, as applicable,
with that certificate holder or with another certificate holder.
4. Section 121.405 is amended by adding new paragraphs (f) and (g)
to read as follows:
Sec. 121.405 Training program and revision: Initial and final
approval.
* * * * *
(f) Each certificate holder described in Sec. 135.3 (b) and (c) of
this chapter must include the material required by
[[Page 65949]]
Sec. 121.403 in the manual required by Sec. 135.21 of this chapter.
(g) The Administrator may grant a deviation to certificate holders
described in Sec. 135.3 (b) and (c) of this chapter to allow reduced
programmed hours of ground training required by Sec. 121.419 if it is
found that a reduction is warranted based on the certificate holder's
operations and the complexity of the make, model, and series of the
aircraft used.
5. Section 121.406 is added as follows:
Sec. 121.406 Reduction of CRM/DRM programmed hours based on credit for
previous CRM/DRM training.
(a) For flightcrew members, the Administrator may credit CRM
training received before March 19, 1998 toward all or part of the
initial ground CRM training required by Sec. 121.419.
(b) For flight attendants, the Administrator may credit CRM
training received before March 19, 1999 toward all or part of the
initial ground CRM training required by Sec. 121.421.
(c) For aircraft dispatchers, the Administrator may credit CRM
training received before March 19, 1999 toward all or part of the
initial ground CRM training required by Sec. 121.422.
(d) In granting credit for initial ground CRM or DRM training, the
Administrator considers training aids, devices, methods, and procedures
used by the certificate holder in a voluntary CRM or DRM program or in
an AQP program that effectively meets the quality of an approved CRM or
DRM initial ground training program under section 121.419, 121.421, or
121.422 as appropriate.
6. Section 121.419 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(vii),
redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(viii) as paragraph (a)(1)(ix), and
adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(viii), to read as follows:
Sec. 121.419 Pilots and flight engineers: Initial, transition, and
upgrade ground training.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) Visual cues prior to and during descent below DH or MDA;
(viii) Approved crew resource management initial training; and
* * * * *
7. Section 121.421 (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.421 Flight attendants: Initial and transition ground
training.
(a) * * *
(1) General subjects--
(i) The authority of the pilot in command;
(ii) Passenger handling, including the procedures to be followed in
the case of deranged persons or other persons whose conduct might
jeopardize safety; and
(iii) Approved crew resource management initial training.
* * * * *
8. Section 121.422 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(vii)
and (a)(1)(viii), and by adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(ix) to read as
follows:
Sec. 121.422 Aircraft dispatchers: Initial and transition ground
training.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Prevailing weather phenomena and the available sources of
weather information;
(viii) Air traffic control and instrument approach procedures; and
(ix) Approved dispatcher resource management (DRM) initial
training.
* * * * *
9. Section 121.427 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(4):
Sec. 121.427 Recurrent training.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Approved recurrent CRM training. For flight crewmembers, this
training or portions thereof may be accomplished during an approved
simulator line operational flight training (LOFT) session. The
recurrent CRM training requirement does not apply until a person has
completed the applicable initial CRM training required by
Secs. 121.419, 121.421, or 121.422.
* * * * *
10. Section 121.431(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.431 Applicability.
(a) This subpart prescribes crewmember qualifications for all
certificate holders except where otherwise specified. The qualification
requirements of this subpart also apply to each certificate holder that
conducts commuter operations under part 135 of this chapter with
airplanes for which two pilots are required by the aircraft type
certification rules of this chapter, or with airplanes having a
passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of 10 seats
or more. The Administrator may authorize any other certificate holder
that conducts operations under part 135 to comply with the training and
qualification requirements of this subpart instead of subparts E, G,
and H of part 135 of this chapter, except that these certificate
holders may choose to comply with the operating experience requirements
of Sec. 135.244 of this chapter, instead of the requirements of
Sec. 121.434.
* * * * *
PART 135--AIR TAXI OPERATORS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS
11. The authority citation for Part 135 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40105, 44113, 44701-
44705, 44707-44717, 44722, and 45303.
12. Section 135.3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 135.3 Rules applicable to operations subject to this part.
(a) Each person operating an aircraft in operations under this part
shall--
(1) While operating inside the United States, comply with the
applicable rules of this chapter; and
(2) While operating outside the United States, comply with Annex 2,
Rules of the Air, to the Convention on International Civil Aviation or
the regulations of any foreign country, whichever applies, and with any
rules of parts 61 and 91 of this chapter and this part that are more
restrictive than that Annex or those regulations and that can be
complied with without violating that Annex or those regulations. Annex
2 is incorporated by reference in Sec. 91.703(b) of this chapter.
(b) After March 19, 1997, each certificate holder that conducts
commuter operations under this part with airplanes in which two pilots
are required by the type certification rules of this chapter, or with
airplanes having a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot
seat, of 10 seats or more, shall comply with subparts N and O of part
121 instead of the requirements of subparts E, G, and H of this part.
Each affected certificate holder must submit to the Administrator and
obtain approval of a transition plan (containing a calendar of events)
for moving from its present part 135 training, checking, testing, and
qualification requirements to the requirements of part 121 of this
chapter. Each transition plan must be submitted by March 19, 1996, and
must contain details on how the certificate holder plans to be in
compliance with subparts N and O of part 121 on or before March 19,
1997.
(c) If authorized by the Administrator upon application, each
certificate holder that conducts operations under this part to which
paragraph (b) of this section does not apply, may comply with the
applicable sections of subparts N and O of part 121 instead of the
requirements of subparts E, G, and H of this part, except that those
authorized certificate
[[Page 65950]]
holders may choose to comply with the operating experience requirements
of Sec. 135.244, instead of the requirements of Sec. 121.434 of this
chapter.
13. Section 135.12 is added:
Sec. 135.12 Previously trained crewmembers.
A certificate holder may use a crewmember who received the
certificate holder's training in accordance with subparts E, G, and H
of this part before March 19, 1997 without complying with initial
training and qualification requirements of subparts N and O of part 121
of this chapter. The crewmember must comply with the applicable
recurrent training requirements of part 121 of this chapter.
Sec. 135.241 [Amended]
14. Section 135.241 is amended by revising ``This'' to read
``Except as provided in Sec. 135.3, this''.
Sec. 135.291 [Amended]
15. Section 135.291 is amended by revising ``This'' to read
``Except as provided in Sec. 135.3, this''.
Sec. 135.321 [Amended]
16. Section 135.321 is amended by revising ``This'' to read
``Except as provided in Sec. 135.3, this''.
Issued in Washington, DC on December 8, 1995.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-30449 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.