issue-1996-04-15•Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-15
Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-15
issue-1996-04-15Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-15Regulation
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. 96-9274 Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16385-16387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9274]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 303
Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 6, 1995, the Federal Trade Commission
(``Commission'') initiated a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding
by publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register
to solicit comment on whether Rule 7(d) of the Rules and Regulations
Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act should be amended
to allow use of the name ``lyocell'' as an alternative to the generic
name ``rayon'' for a specific subclass of rayon fibers defined in the
proposed amendment. The Commission has analyzed the record developed
during that proceeding and has concluded that the lyocell subclass has
sufficiently different characteristics from other rayons to justify use
of the term ``lyocell'' as an alternative to the generic name ``rayon''
for that subclass. The Commission announces, therefore, that Textile
Rule 7(d) will be amended. The amendment will allow the use of the term
``lyocell'' as a generic name on disclosures required by the Textile
Act for fibers that meet the definition of lyocell in the amendment.
This Notice summarizes the comments received in response to the
December 6, 1995, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and sets out the
Commission's final action in this matter.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bret S. Smart, Program Advisor, Los Angeles Regional Office, Federal
Trade Commission, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard, #13209, Los Angeles, CA
90024, (310) 235-4040.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Rule 6 \1\ of the Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber
Products Identification Act (``Textile Act'') \2\ requires use of
generic names of the fibers contained in textile fiber products in
making required disclosures of the fiber content of the products. Rule
7 \3\ sets forth the generic names and definitions that the Commission
has established for manufactured fibers. Rule 8 \4\ sets forth the
procedures for establishing new generic names for manufactured fibers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 CFR 303.6.
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 70, et seq.
\3\ 16 CFR 303.7.
\4\ 16 CFR 303.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 1992, Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. (``Courtaulds'')
applied to the Commission requesting establishment of a new generic
name and definition for a fiber it manufactures. It recommended
``lyocell'' be adopted as the new generic name for this fiber. In its
application, Courtaulds stated that this cellulosic fiber differs in
kind and chemical structure from any of the existing fiber definitions
of Rule 7.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Courtaulds' application and related materials have been
placed on the rulemaking record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After an initial analysis, the Commission granted Courtaulds the
designation ``CF0001'' for temporary use in identifying the fiber until
final disposition of the application.
Courtaulds' application and other related documents and materials
describe the lyocell fiber, its manufacture, and possible uses as
follows:
Lyocell fiber results from the dissolution of cellulose into an
aqueous solution of N-methyl morpholine oxide and the precipitation
of the fiber out of solution. This process is unique among methods
used to manufacture other existing rayons. As a result, the
molecular structure of lyocell fiber is radically different from
that of other rayons in that it has a substantially higher degree of
polymerization and greater crystallinity. These differences induce
high wet and dry tenacity as well as high initial wet modulus
[[Page 16386]]
in lyocell fiber. Consequently, garments made from the fiber are
highly resistant to shrinkage and wrinkling and therefore do not
require dry-cleaning, unlike other rayons.
Based on its review of Courtaulds' application and related
materials, the Commission solicited comments in its December 6, 1995,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking \6\ on a proposed amendment to the Rule
7(d) definition of rayon.\7\ The proposed amendment would add the
following sentence:
\6\ 60 FR 62352 (Dec. 6, 1995).
\7\ Rule 7(d) (16 CFR 303.7(d)) currently defines ``rayon'' as,
``a manufactured fiber composed of regenerated cellulose, as well as
manufactured fibers composed of regenerated cellulose in which
substituents have replaced not more than 15% of the hydrogens of the
hydroxyl groups.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where the fiber is composed of cellulose precipitated from an
organic solution in which no substitution of the hydroxyl groups
takes place and no chemical intermediates are formed, the term
lyocell may be used as a generic description of the fiber.
The effect of this proposed amendment would be to allow use of the
name ``lyocell' as an alternative to the generic name ``rayon'' for the
subclass of fibers meeting the criteria contained in the proposed
second sentence.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Within the established 21 generic names for manufactured
fibers, there are currently two cases where such generic name
alternatives may be used. Pursuant to Rule 7(e) (16 CFR 303.7(e)),
within the generic category ``acetate,'' the term ``triacetate'' may
be used as an alternative generic description for a specifically
defined subclass of acetate fiber. Pursuant to Rule 7(j) (16 CFR
303.7(j)), within the generic category ``rubber,'' the term
``lastrile'' may be used as an alternative generic description for a
specifically defined subclass of rubber fiber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission took the
opportunity to clarify its 1973 statement of policy concerning the
criteria by which it will decide the disposition of applications filed
under Rule 8.\9\ The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stated as follows:
\9\ In 1973 the Commission summarized its policy for adopting
generic fiber names, as follows:
[T]he Commission, in the interest of elucidating the grounds on
which it has based this decision and shall base future decisions as
to the grant of generic names for textile fibers, sets out the
following criteria for grant of such generic names.
1. The fiber for which a generic name is requested must have a
chemical composition radically different from other fibers, and that
distinctive chemical composition must result in distinctive physical
properties of significance to the general public.
2. The fiber must be in active commercial use or such use must
be immediately foreseen.
3. The grant of the generic name must be of importance to the
consuming public at large, rather than to a small group of
knowledgeable professionals such as purchasing officers for large
Government agencies.
The Commission believes it is in the public interest to prevent
the proliferation of generic names, and will adhere to a stringent
application of the above-mentioned criteria in consideration of any
future applications for generic names and in a systematic review of
any generic names previously granted which no longer meet these
criteria.
(See 38 FR 34114, November 12, 1973.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As exemplified by today's action and reflected in this notice,
the Commission generally reaffirms its 1973 criteria. In addition,
it notes that where appropriate, in considering application for new
generic names for fibers that are of the same general chemical
composition as those for which a generic name already has been
established, rather than of a chemical composition that is radically
different, but that have distinctive properties of importance to the
general public as a result of a new method of manufacture or their
substantially differentiated physical characteristics, such as their
fiber structure, it may allow such fiber to be designated in
required information disclosures by either its generic name, or
alternatively, by its ``subclass'' name. The Commission will
consider this disposition when the distinctive feature or features
of the subclass fiber make it suitable for uses for which other
fibers under the established generic name would not be suited or
would be significantly less well suited.
Based on the information available to it at the time comments were
solicited, the Commission further stated in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking as follows:
The Commission believes that Courtaulds' current application
describes a subclass of generic rayon fibers with significant
distinctions to consumers resulting from physical characteristics of
the fiber and its new mode of manufacture that meet the above
standard for allowing designation by the subclass name ``lyocell.''
II. Summary and Analysis of Comments
A. Summary
There were twenty-seven comments submitted in this proceeding.\10\
Twenty-six of these were one page in length and generally expressed
support for the Commission's proposed amendment to Rule 7(d). Nearly
half of the comments additionally stated that lyocell has significantly
different characteristics from other rayons. Among these letters was
one from the Austrian company, Lenzing AG. Describing itself as ``the
world's leading producer of viscose staple fiber,'' Lenzing AG
commented as follows:
\10\ Los Angeles Dye & Denim Finish, Inc. (1), Parkdale Mills,
Inc. (2), JPS Converter and Industrial Corp. (3), Lee Company (4),
New Cherokee Corporation (5), Horizon Textiles Corp. (6), Ge-Ray
Fabrics, Inc. (7), Burlington Madison Yarn Company (8), Greenwood
Mills, Inc. (9), Dixie Yarns, Inc. (10), Stonecutter Mills
Corporation (11), Burlington Industries, Inc. (12), New Cherokee
Corporation (13), Milliken (14), David Dart (15), Burlington Denim
(16), Threads USA (17), Threads USA (18), Dan River, Inc. (19),
Lenzing AG (20), Milliken (21), Milliken (22), Guilford Mills, Inc.
(23), American Fiber Manufacturers Association, Inc. (24), Springs
(25), Eileen Fisher (26), Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation (27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Lenzing] welcomes and supports the FTC's proposal to add
``lyocell'' to the list of approved generic names.
Lenzing AG has developed a lyocell fiber and currently operates
a small scale pilot plant. A commercial scale plant of 24,000 tonnes
a year is under construction, but already before its completion mid
1997 will the fiber be marketed in the USA under the trade name
``Lyocell by Lenzing.''
The decision for a new cellulosic fiber technology has been
taken because of the unique and significantly different
characteristics that differentiate ``lyocell'' clearly from rayon
and/or viscose. We feel strongly that the consumer will actively
seek the inherent fiber properties and a clear reference to
``lyocell'' in the fiber content label of a textile product will be
appreciated.\11\
\11\ Lenzing AG (20) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Fiber Manufacturers Association, Inc. (``AFMA'')
submitted a two-page letter with thirteen pages of attachments. The
letter states as follows:
AFMA is the domestic trade association for the U.S. manufactured
fiber industry. The Association's membership is comprehensive with
eighteen members accounting for more than 90 percent of the U.S.
production of synthetic and cellulosic fiber. The Association's
basic policy is to oppose the proliferation of generic fiber names,
except where there is a clear and compelling rationale--which we
believe exists in the case of lyocell.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ American Fiber Manufacturers Association, Inc. (24) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Analysis
The Commission has considered the comments and all other
information available to it in this matter. It concludes that, as a
result of its physical characteristics and mode of manufacture,
``lyocell'' fiber is a subclass of generic ``rayon'' with significant
distinctions to consumers (e.g., washability). The Commission further
concludes that it is in the public interest to amend Rule 7(d) to
define the ``lyocell'' subclass and to allow use of the name
``lyocell'' as an alternative to the generic name ``rayon'' for that
subclass of fiber.
The temporary designation ``CF0001'' previously assigned
Courtaulds' fiber for temporary use is hereby revoked as of the
effective date of this amendment.
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In publishing the proposed amendment, the Commission certified,
subject to subsequent public comment, that the proposed amendment, if
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities and, therefore, that the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,\13\ requiring
[[Page 16387]]
an initial regulatory analysis, did not apply.\14\ In considering the
economic impact of the proposed amendment on manufacturers and
retailers, the Commission noted that the amendment would impose no
obligations, penalties or costs, in part because the amendment simply
provides an additional, alternative method of complying with existing
rules. Use of the new alternative is voluntary. The Commission
nonetheless requested comment on the effects of the proposed amendment
on costs, profitability, competitiveness, and employment in small
entitles, in order not to overlook any substantial economic impact that
would warrant a final regulatory flexibility analysis.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
\14\ 60 FR 62352, 62354 (Dec. 6, 1995).
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the explicit request by the Commission for comment on the
impact of the amendment on small entities, and the receipt of twenty-
seven comments from a variety of industry members, including the
association that represents the producers of over 90% of U.S. fiber, no
comments were received on this aspect of the rulemaking. The uniform
silence on this issue supports the Commission's tentative conclusion
contained in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Accordingly, on the
basis of all the information before it, the Commission has determined
that the final amendment will not have a sufficiently significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities to warrant a
final regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. The notice serves as certification to that effect to the Small
Business Administration.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
This amendment does not constitute a ``collection of information''
under the Paperwork Reduction Act \16\ and the implementing regulations
of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'').\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
\17\ 5 CFR 1320.7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The generic name petition requests have already been submitted to
the OMB and have been assigned a control number, 3084-0047.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 303
Labeling, Textiles, Trade practices.
PART 303--RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER THE TEXTILE FIBER PRODUCTS
IDENTIFICATION ACT
Accordingly, after consideration of the views, arguments and data
submitted pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this matter,
and in consideration of other pertinent information and material
available to the Commission, the Commission has determined to amend 16
CFR Part 303, Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act, in the manner set forth below:
1. The authority citation for Part 303 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 7(c) of the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act, 15 U.S.C. 70e(c); Sec. 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.
Sec. 303.7 [Amended]
2. Section 303.7(d), Generic Names and Definitions for Manufactured
Fibers, of 16 CFR Part 303 is hereby revised to read as follows:
Sec. 303.7 Generic names and definitions for manufactured fibers.
* * * * *
(d) Rayon--a manufactured fiber composed of regenerated cellulose,
as well as manufactured fibers composed of regenerated cellulose in
which substituents have replaced not more than 15% of the hydrogens of
the hydroxyl groups. Where the fiber is composed of cellulose
precipitated from an organic solution in which no substitution of the
hydroxyl groups takes place and no chemical intermediates are formed,
the term lyocell may be used as a generic description of the fiber.
* * * * *
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-9274 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9273 Airworthiness Directives; Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc. Hardpoint Assemblies Installed on McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Model 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, and 500N Helicopters
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16384-16385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9273]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-SW-19-AD; Amendment 39-9569; AD 96-08-03]
Airworthiness Directives; Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc.
Hardpoint Assemblies Installed on McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems
Model 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, and 500N Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc. hardpoint assemblies,
installed in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No.
SH6080NM, or in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Form 337, ``Major Repair and Alteration,'' approved on McDonnell
Douglas Helicopter Systems (MDHS) Model 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, and
500N helicopters, that requires removing any Flight Trails Helicopters,
Inc. hardpoint assembly not identified by part number (P/N) and serial
number (S/N). This amendment is prompted by two incidents in which the
hardpoint assembly used to support a search light or night vision
system reportedly failed. The actions specified by this AD are intended
to prevent failure of the hardpoint assembly, separation of the
hardpoint assembly from the helicopter, and subsequent contact between
the hardpoint assembly and the fuselage or rotor system of the
helicopter.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James Wang, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712,
telephone (310) 627-5303, fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc.
hardpoint assemblies installed in accordance with STC No. SH6080NM, or
in accordance with FAA Form 337, ``Major Repair and Alteration,''
approved on MDHS Model 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, and 500N helicopters,
was published in the Federal Register on September 19, 1995 (60 FR
48428). That action proposed to require, before further flight,
removing the hardpoint assemblies not marked by a part number and a
serial number from the affected helicopters. These hardpoint assemblies
are used to secure a searchlight or night vision system to the affected
helicopter.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA
has determined that air safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule as proposed, except for adding the -1 and -2 to
further identify the jacking fitting part number. The FAA has
determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden
on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.
The FAA estimates that 59 helicopters of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per
helicopter to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average
labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost
impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,540.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it 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:
[[Page 16385]]
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:
AD 96-08-03 Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc.: Amendment 39-9569.
Docket No. 95-SW-19-AD.
Applicability: McDonnell Douglas Helicopters Systems (MDHS)
Model 369D, 369E, 369F, 369FF, and 500N helicopters, that have been
modified in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No.
SH6080NM, or in accordance with a Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Form 337, ``Major Repair and Alteration,'' using Flight Trails
Helicopters, Inc. hardpoint assemblies, certificated in any
category.
Note 1: 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 (b) 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.
Note 2: Information concerning the hardpoint assemblies may be
obtained from Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc., ATTN: Mr. Larry
Anderson, 4805 Falcon Drive, Mesa, Arizona 85205, telephone (602)
396-8242.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent failure of the hardpoint assembly, separation of the
hardpoint assembly from the helicopter, and subsequent contact
between the hardpoint assembly and the fuselage or rotor system of
the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Before further flight, remove from the helicopter any Flight
Trails Helicopters, Inc. hardpoint assembly not marked with a part
number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) by removing the NAS 1351-3 cap
screw that secures the hardpoint assembly to the jacking fitting, P/
N 369H2521-1 and -2, and slipping the hardpoint assembly out of the
step mount. The only Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc. hardpoint
assemblies that are considered airworthy and eligible for
installation are those hardpoint assemblies marked with a serial
number and either P/N FTH 105 LH Mod 1, for a hardpoint assembly
mounted on the left side of the helicopter, or P/N FTH 105 RH Mod 1,
for a hardpoint assembly mounted on the right side.
(b) 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, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests
through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or
comment and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
(c) 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.
(d) This amendment becomes effective on May 20, 1996.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 2, 1996.
Eric Bries,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9273 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9252 Special Conditions: Turbomeca Model Arriel 2S1 Turboshaft Engine
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16375-16377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9252]
========================================================================
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. 61, No. 73 / Monday, April 15, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 16375]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 33
[Docket No. 95-ANE-46; 33-ANE-05]
Special Conditions: Turbomeca Model Arriel 2S1 Turboshaft Engine
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Turbomeca Model
Arriel 2S1 turboshaft engine. This engine will have novel or unique
engine ratings that are not defined by the applicable airworthiness
regulations. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards which the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the airworthiness
standards of part 33 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chung Hsieh, Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, Engine and
Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, New England
Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-
5229; (617) 238-7115; Fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 25, 1994, Turbomeca applied for an amendment to type
certificate E19EU to include a new Model Arriel 2S1 turboshaft engine.
The Model Arriel 2S1 turboshaft engine will be rated at 30-Second and
2-Minute one engine inoperative (OEI), 30-Minute OEI, Continuous OEI,
Takeoff, and Maximum Continuous ratings.
The applicable airworthiness requirements do not contain 30-Second
OEI and 2-Minute OEI rating definitions, and do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the type certification of these new
and unusual engine ratings.
Type Certification Basis
Under the provisions of section 21.101 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR), Turbomeca must show that the Model Arriel 2S1
turboshaft engine meets the applicable provisions of the regulations as
referenced in Type Certificate No. E19EU or the applicable regulations
in effect on the date of the application. The regulations incorporated
by reference in Type Certificate No. E19EU are Section 21.29 and part
33, effective February 1, 1965, as amended by Amendments 33-1 through
33-5, Turbomeca, however, has elected, under section 21.17, to comply
with Amendments 33-1 through 33-14. The FAA has determined that the use
of the airworthiness standards as amended by the later amendments for
type certification of this derivative engine will enhance safety and
therefore accepts the Turbomeca's proposal.
The Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations in part 33, as amended, do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Turbomeca Model Arriel 2S1
turboshaft engine because of the new and unique engine ratings.
Therefore, the Administrator prescribes special conditions under the
provisions of section 21.16 to establish a level of safety equivalent
to that established in the regulations.
Special conditions, as appropriate, are issued in accordance with
section 11.49 of the FAR after public notice and opportunity for
comment, as required by sections 11.28 and 11.29(b), and become part of
the type certification basis in accordance with section 21.101(b)(2).
Discussion of Comments
Interested persons have been afforded the opportunity to
participate in the making of these special conditions. No comments were
received on the special conditions as proposed. However, comments
addressing numerous issues were received in response to proposed
special conditions for a similar engine program, Allison Engine Company
(AE) Model 250 turboshaft engine. These comments were discussed in
Notice No. SC-95-04-NE published in the Federal Register on November
27, 1995 (FR 60 58204). As a result of those comments, changes to the
proposals and for clarification in certain sections of the special
conditions were made. The FAA has determined that those changes made to
the special conditions for AE Model 250 engine are also applicable to
Turbomeca Arriel Model 2S1 engine and therefore they are adopted in
this Final special conditions. In addition, some editorial changes have
also been made to section 33.27 of this Final special condition for
clarification.
After careful review of the available data, the FAA determined that
air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the special
conditions with the changes described previously.
Conclusion
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model engine. It is not a rule of general applicability and
affects only the manufacturer who applied to the FAA for approval of
these features on the engine.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
PART 33--[AMENDED]
The authority citation for these special conditions continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
The Special Conditions
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Turbomeca Model 2S1 turboshaft
engine:
Sec. 33.4 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
In addition to the requirements of section 33.4, the mandatory
inspection and maintenance actions required following the use of the
30-Second or 2-Minute OEI rating must be included in the airworthiness
limitations section of the appropriate engine manuals.
Sec. 33.7 Engine Ratings and Operating Limitations.
In addition to the requirements of section 33.7, the following
ratings are defined as:
[[Page 16376]]
(a) Rated 30-Second one engine inoperative (OEI) power: The
approved brake horsepower developed under static conditions at
specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations
established for the engine under part 33 and this special conditions,
for continued one-flight operation after the failure of one engine in
multi-engine rotorcraft, limited to three periods of use, no longer
than 30 seconds each, in any one flight, and followed by mandatory
inspection and prescribed maintenance action.
(b) Rated 2-Minute OEI power: The approved brake horsepower,
developed under static conditions at specified altitudes and
temperatures, within the operating limitations established for the
engine under part 33 and this special conditions, for continued one-
flight operation after the failure of one engine in multi-engine
rotorcraft, limited to three periods of use, of no longer than 2
minutes each in any one flight, and followed by mandatory inspection
and prescribed maintenance action.
Sec. 33.27 Turbine, Compressor, Fan, and Turbo-supercharger Rotors.
For 2-minute and 30-second OEI ratings, in addition to the
requirements of section 33.27(b), turbine and compressor rotors must
have sufficient strength to withstand the conditions specified in one
of the following tests for the most critically stressed rotor component
of each turbine and compressor including integral drum rotors and
centrifugal compressor, as determined by analysis or other acceptable
means. The selection of the test from the following paragraph (a) or
(b) of this section is determined by the speed defined in paragraph
(a)(2) or (b)(2), whichever is higher.
(a) Test for a period of two and one-half minutes--
(1) At its maximum operating temperature except as provided in
paragraph 33.27(c)(2)(iv); and
(2) At the highest speed determined, in accordance with section
33.27(c)(2) (i) through (iv).
(3) This test may be performed using a separate test vehicle as
desired.
(b) Test for a period of 5 minutes--
(1) At its maximum operating temperature except as provided in
paragraph 33.27(c)(2)(iv); and
(2) At 100 percent of the highest speed that would result from
failure of the most critical component of each turbine and compressor
or system in a representative installation of the engine when operating
at 30-Second and 2-Minute OEI rating conditions, and
(3) The test speed must take into account minimum material
properties, maximum operating temperature, and the most adverse
dimensional tolerances.
(4) This test may be performed using a separate test vehicle as
desired.
Following the test, rotor growth and distress beyond dimensional
limits for an overspeed condition is permitted for 30-Second and 2-
Minute OEI rating only, provided the structural integrity of the rotor
is maintained, as shown by a procedure acceptable to the Administrator.
Sec. 33.29 Instrument Connection.
In addition to the requirements of section 33.29, the engine must
have a provision for a means to:
(a) Alert the pilot when the engine is at the 30-Second OEI and a
2-Minute OEI power levels;
(b) Determine, in a positive manner, that the engine has been
operated at each rating; and
(c) Determine the elapsed time of operation of each rating.
Sec. 33.67 Fuel System.
In addition to the requirements of section 33.67, the engine must
provide for a means for automatic availability and automatic control of
the 30-Second OEI power; and engine test runs must be performed to
demonstrate automatic functioning of both of these means.
Sec. 33.83 Vibration Test.
In addition to the requirements of section 33.83, the following
additional test requirements must be considered under 33.83(a): For 30-
Second and 2-Minute OEI rating conditions, the vibration survey shall
cover the ranges of power, and both the physical and corrected
rotational speeds for each rotor system, corresponding to operations
throughout the range of ambient conditions in the declared flight
envelope, from the minimum rotor speed up to 103 percent of the maximum
rotor speed permitted for 2-Minute OEI rating, and up to 100 percent of
the maximum rotor speed permitted for 30-Second OEI rating speed. If
there is any indication of a stress peak arising at the highest
physical or corrected rotational speeds, the surveys shall be extended
sufficiently to reveal the maximum stress values present except that
the extension needs not cover more than a further 2 percent beyond
those speed.
Sec. 33.85 Calibration Test.
In addition to the requirements of section 33.85, tests performed
at the 30-Second and 2-Minute OEI ratings, during the applicable
additional endurance test prescribed in section 33.87 as amended by
these special conditions, may be used to show compliance with the
requirements of section 33.85.
Sec. 33.87 Endurance Test.
In addition to the requirements of section 33.87, an engine test
must be conducted four times, using the following test sequence, for a
total of not less than 120 minutes:
(a) Takeoff Power--three minutes at rated takeoff power.
(b) 30-Second OEI power--thirty seconds at rated 30-Second OEI
power.
(c) 2-Minute OEI power--two minutes at rated 2-Minute OEI power.
(d) 30-Minute OEI, Continuous OEI, or Maximum Continuous power--
five minutes at rated 30-Minute OEI power, or rated Continuous OEI
power, or rated Maximum Continuous power, whichever is greatest, except
that during the first test sequence this period shall be 65 minutes.
(e) 50 Percent takeoff power--one minute at 50 percent takeoff
power.
(f) 30-Second OEI power--thirty seconds at rated 30-Second OEI
power.
(g) 2-Minute OEI power--two minutes at rated 2-Minute OEI power.
(h) Idle power--one minute at idle power.
Sec. 33.88 Engine Overtemperature Test.
In addition to the requirements of section 33.88, the following
must be performed:
(a) For engines that do not provide a means for temperature
limiting; conduct a test for a period of five minutes at the maximum
permissible power-on RPM, with the gas temperature at least 75 degrees
Fahrenheit higher than the 30-Second OEI rating operating temperature
limit.
(b) For engines that provide a means for temperature limiting;
conduct a test for a period of four minutes at the maximum permissible
power-on RPM, with the gas temperature at least 35 degrees Fahrenheit
higher than the 30-Second OEI rating operating temperature limit.
(c) A separate test engine may be used for each test.
(d) Following the test, rotor assembly growth and distress beyond
serviceable limits for an overtemperature condition is permitted,
provided the structural integrity of the rotor assembly is maintained,
as shown by a procedure that is acceptable to the Administrator.
Sec. 33.93 Teardown Inspection.
In addition to the requirements of section 33.93, this special
condition requires that the engine be completely disassembled after
completing the
[[Page 16377]]
additional testing of section 33.87. The engine must comply with
section 33.93(a), but it may exhibit deterioration in excess of that
permitted in section 33.93(b), and may include some engine parts and
components that may be unsuitable for further use. It must be shown by
procedures approved by the Administrator that the structural integrity
of the engine, including mounts, cases, bearing supports, shafts and
rotors, is maintained.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 3, 1996.
James C. Jones,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9252 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9207 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Delay in Start of Regular Fishing Seasons for Nontrawl Sablefish and Pacific Whiting
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16401-16402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9207]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16402]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 663
[Docket No. 960221041-6102-02; I.D. 013196A]
RIN 0648-AI34
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Delay in Start of Regular
Fishing Seasons for Nontrawl Sablefish and Pacific Whiting
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing regulations that would delay the start of
the ``regular'' fishing seasons by 1 month or less for the nontrawl
sablefish and the Pacific whiting (whiting) limited entry fisheries 3-
200 nautical miles (6-370 km) off Washington, Oregon, and California.
This rule accommodates requests from the industry for delayed fishing
seasons, which are intended primarily to enable nontrawl sablefish
fishers to participate in other fisheries and to enhance the quality of
whiting.
EFFECTIVE DATES: May 15, 1996, except the change to the whiting season
at Sec. 663.23(b)(3)(i), which is effective April 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact
Reviews (EA/RIRs) may be obtained from the Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council), 2000 SW First Avenue, Suite 420, Portland, OR 97201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Robinson at 206-526-6140,
or Rodney R. McInnis at 310-980-4030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These actions are taken under the authority
of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan and the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act). This
final rule delays the start of the regular fishing seasons for the
limited entry fisheries for nontrawl sablefish and for whiting, as
recommended by the Council at its October 1995 meeting in Portland, OR.
NMFS published a proposed rule at 61 FR 8021 (March 1, 1996),
requesting comments through March 22, 1996. Two comments were received,
both in support of the delay in the whiting season, from
representatives of more than 75 percent of the at-sea processing fleet.
The background and rationale for this rule appear in the proposed rule
and the (EA/RIR) prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
For the reasons set forth in those documents, NMFS concurs with the
Council's recommendation. This final rule is the same as proposed.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) has determined
that this final rule is necessary for management of the Pacific coast
groundfish fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson Act and
other applicable law.
The Council prepared an EA for this rule (contained in the EA/RIR)
and the AA concluded that this rule would not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
E.O. 12866.
NMFS finds good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to implement
the whiting season portion of this rule before the beginning of the
April 15, 1996, regular season for whiting north of 42 deg. N. lat.,
rather than delaying effectiveness for 30 days. Since the industry
expects the delay in opening, a delay in effectiveness would not
provide time to adjust, but would disrupt the businesses of the
regulated community. The whiting are healthier and larger by May, which
means better profits for the industry. Furthermore, an opening on April
15 would result in increased groundfish bycatch (wasteful) and
increased salmon bycatch (both wasteful and harmful to depleted/listed
species). NMFS finds no need to waive the delay in effectiveness for
the nontrawl sablefish portion of this rule.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 663
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 9, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 663 is amended
as follows:
PART 663--PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY
1. The authority citation for part 663 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 663.23, effective May 15, 1996, paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A),
(b)(2)(i)(B), (b)(2)(ii), and (b)(2)(iv) are revised, and effective
April 15, 1996, paragraph (b)(3)(i) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 663.23 Catch restrictions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * * (A) Sablefish taken with fixed gear in the limited entry
or open access fishery in the EEZ may not be retained or landed from 12
noon August 29 through 12 noon September 1.
(B) All fixed gear used to take and retain groundfish must be out
of EEZ waters from 12 noon August 29 through 12 noon September 1,
except that pot gear used to take and retain groundfish may be deployed
and baited in the EEZ after 12 noon on August 31.
(ii) Regular season--Limited entry fishery. The regular season for
the limited entry nontrawl sablefish fishery begins at 12:01 on
September 1. During the regular season, the limited entry nontrawl
sablefish fishery may be subject to trip limits to protect juvenile
sablefish. The regular season will end when 70 percent of the limited
entry nontrawl allocation has been or is projected to be taken. The end
of the regular season may be announced in the Federal Register either
before or during the regular season.
* * * * *
(iv) The dates and times that the regular season ends (and trip
limits on sablefish of all sizes are resumed) and the mop-up season
begins and ends, and the size of the trip limit for the mop-up fishery,
will be announced in the Federal Register, and may be modified. Unless
otherwise announced, these seasons will begin and end at 12 noon on the
specified date. A vessel landing sablefish in Puget Sound that was
taken under a limited entry permit with nontrawl gear during a regular
season is not subject to trip limits on that trip (except the regular
season trip limits to protect juvenile sablefish), provided the landing
complies with Washington State regulations governing sablefish landings
in Puget Sound after the regular season.
* * * * *
(3) Pacific whiting--(i) Season. The regular season for Pacific
whiting begins on May 15 north of 42 deg.00' N. lat., on March 1
between 42 deg.00' N. lat. and 40 deg.30' N. lat., and on April 15
south of 40 deg.30' N. lat. Before and after the regular season, trip
landing or frequency limits may be imposed under paragraph (c) of this
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-9207 Filed 4-10-96; 9:53 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9198 General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Amendment of Emergency Fishing Closure in Block Island Sound
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9198]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 620
[Docket No. 960126016-6105-03; I.D. 040896B]
General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Amendment of Emergency
Fishing Closure in Block Island Sound
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Emergency interim rule; amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the State of Rhode Island, NMFS
is amending further the emergency interim rule that closed a portion of
Federal waters off the coast of the State of Rhode Island, in Block
Island Sound subsequent to an oil spill. This amendment allows all
legal fishing to resume with the exception of lobstering in a small
portion of the previously closed area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1996 through May 01, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Morris at (508) 281-9388.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 19, 1996, an oil barge grounded
and spilled more than 800,000 gallons (3.0 million liters) of heating
oil into the waters of Block Island Sound, RI. On January 26, 1996,
NMFS, at the request of and in conjunction with the State of Rhode
Island, prohibited the harvest of seafood from an area of approximately
250 square miles (647 square km) in Block Island Sound. The original
area of closure was announced and defined in an emergency interim rule
published in the Federal Register on February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3602).
On March 13, 1996, NMFS opened the entire area to fishing for and
landing finfish and squid by gear types other than bottom trawl gear.
This same action, published in the Federal Register on March 19, 1996
(61 FR 11164), expanded by approximately 28 square miles (73 square km)
the area in which fishing for and landing lobsters, clams, and crabs is
prohibited. The use of lobster traps, bottom trawl or dredge gear was
prohibited throughout the expanded closed area.
Following the oil spill, State officials, in consultation with
Federal agencies and the responsible party, developed a protocol for
reopening fisheries in the affected area. The protocol sets sampling,
inspection, and analysis standards, which, if met, would ensure that
seafood is wholesome and would provide a basis for reopening fisheries.
In accordance with the protocol, State and Federal agencies have
been testing the water and marine life in and around the closed area
since the closure began. Seafood species have been subjected to
inspection by sensory experts and chemical analysis. Though all seafood
from the area has been determined to be safe for consumption, certain
lobsters from one particular sector still show some evidence of oil
adulteration. Therefore, NMFS, at the request of the State, is opening
all areas to all fishing with the exception of the one sector
(described below) where oil adulteration has been detected in lobsters.
This area remains closed to fishing for, or possessing or landing
American lobsters from the closed area.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has
determined that this rule is necessary to respond to an emergency
situation and is consistent with the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and other applicable law.
Testing has determined that consumption of seafood from the
previously closed area does not pose a threat to human health.
Fishermen who operate in the area would suffer severe economic hardship
unnecessarily if the current prohibition were to remain in effect.
Hence, the AA finds that the foregoing constitutes good cause to waive
the requirement to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public
comment, pursuant to authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such
procedures would be contrary to the public interest. Further, as this
provision relieves a restriction, it is made effective immediately
pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
This emergency rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of E.O. 12866.
This emergency rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because this rule is not required to be issued with
prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 620
Fisheries, Fishing.
Dated: April 9, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 620 is amended
as follows:
PART 620--GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR DOMESTIC FISHERIES
1. The authority citation for part 620 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 620.7, paragraphs (j) and (k) are removed, and paragraph
(i) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 620.7 General prohibitions.
* * * * *
(i) Fish for American lobsters in, or possess or land American
lobsters from, the Federal waters of Block Island Sound bounded as
follows: From the point where LORAN line 14470 intersects with the 3-
nautical mile (6-km) line south of Point Judith, RI, proceeding south-
southeasterly to its intersection with the 43870 line, thence
southwesterly along the 43870 line to its intersection with the 3-
nautical mile (6-km) line east of Block Island, RI, thence northerly
and along said 3-nautical mile (6-km) line to the northern intersection
of the 3-nautical mile (6-km) line and the 14540 line, thence
northwesterly along the 14540 line to the intersection of the 3-
nautical mile (6-km) line, thence northeasterly along the 3-nautical
mile (6-km) line to the starting point.
[FR Doc. 96-9198 Filed 4-9-96; 4:51 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9194 Cable Television Leased Commercial Access
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16396-16401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9194]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[CS Docket No. 9660; FCC 96122]
Cable Television Leased Commercial Access
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted an Order on Reconsideration of the
First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
regarding implementation of the leased commercial access provisions of
the 1992 Cable Act. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking segment
of this decision may be found elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. The Order on Reconsideration (``Order'') segment addresses
several issues regarding leased commercial access, including the
highest implicit fee formula, the provision of rate information, part-
time rates, time increments, billing and collection services, security
deposits, the calculation of statutory set-aside requirements, and
reporting requirements. The Order is intended to respond to certain
petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's current leased access
rules.
DATES: Rule changes become effective May 15, 1996, except for
Sec. 76.970(e) which contains information collection requirements which
are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB''). When approval is received, the agency will publish a
document announcing the effective date. Written comments by the public
on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due May 15,
1996. Written comments must be submitted by OMB on the proposed and/or
modified information collections on or before June 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. A copy of any comments on
the information collections contained herein should be submitted to
Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
[email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB,
725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Crakes, Cable Services Bureau,
(202) 416-0800. For additional information concerning the information
collections contained in this Order, contact Dorothy Conway at (202)
418-0217, or via the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order
on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order, CS Docket 96-60
(formerly MM Docket 92-266), adopted March 21, 1996 and released March
29, 1996. The full text of this decision is available for inspection
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center
(Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, and may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
Synopsis of the Order on Reconsideration
I. Introduction
1. In the Order, the Commission addressed ten petitions for
reconsideration of the cable television commercial leased access rules
adopted in its Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, MM Docket No. 92-266, FCC 93-177, 58 FR 29736 (May 21, 1993)
(``Rate Order''),
[[Page 16397]]
pursuant to the provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection
and Competition Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460
(1992), 47 U.S.C. 521, et seq. (1992) (``1992 Cable Act''). The Order
was adopted in conjunction with a Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (``Further Notice'') that sought comment on certain leased
access issues not resolved by the Order.
2. The statutory framework for commercial leased access was
established by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Public Law
No. 98-549, 98 Stat. 2779 (1984), 47 U.S.C. 521 et seq. (``1984 Cable
Act'') and amended by the 1992 Cable Act. The 1984 Cable Act
established commercial leased access to assure access to the channel
capacity of cable systems by parties unaffiliated with the cable
operator that wish to distribute video programming free of the
editorial control of the cable operator. Channel set-aside requirements
were established in proportion to a system's total activated channel
capacity.
3. In the Rate Order in this docket, the Commission established
initial regulations to implement the leased access provisions of the
1992 Cable Act. The Commission adopted the highest implicit fee formula
as the method to set maximum reasonable rates, and adopted various
standards governing access terms and conditions, tier placement,
technical standards for use, technical support, security deposits,
conditions based on program content, requirements for billing and
collection service, and procedures for the expedited resolution of
disputes. The Order further addresses several of these issues.
II. Maximum Rate Formula
4. Background: Section 612 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, (``Communications Act'') section 612, 47 U.S.C. section 532,
directs the Commission to determine the maximum reasonable rates that a
cable operator may impose for leased commercial access. Previously, the
Commission adopted rules that base the maximum rate on an ``implicit''
fee paid by non-leased access program services that are being
distributed. In the non-leased access context, cable system operators
generally receive a payment from subscribers and pay contractual
license fees to programmers for the channels the operators distribute.
The differences between these dollar amounts may be thought of as the
implicit fees that the programmers pay to have their services
distributed to subscribers. The Commission determined that the implicit
fee is the price per channel each subscriber pays the operator minus
the amount per subscriber the operator pays the programmer. Section
76.970(c) of the Commission's rules provides that this difference is
multiplied by the percentage of subscribers able to receive the
unaffiliated programmer's service. The implicit fee for a contracted
service may not include fees, stated or implied, for services other
than the provision of channel capacity (e.g., billing and collection,
marketing, or studio services). Section 76.970(d) of the rules states
that maximum rates for shorter periods of time can be calculated by
prorating the monthly maximum rate.
5. Under our current rules, the maximum rate is the highest of the
implicit fees charged any unaffiliated programmer within the same
programmer category. Cable operators are required to calculate the
highest implicit fee for each of the following programmer categories:
(a) Those charging subscribers directly on a per-event or per-channel
basis; (b) those using a channel for more than 50 percent of the time
to sell products directly to customers (e.g., home shopping networks,
infomercials, etc.); and (c) all others. Under the rules, cable
operators are required to calculate annually the maximum rates for each
programmer category based on the contracts with unaffiliated
programmers in effect in the previous calendar year. Operators are
further required to provide rate schedules to prospective programmers
upon request.
6. Clarifications for Calculating the Highest Implicit Fee: Through
the Commission's complaint process as well as this reconsideration
proceeding, it has come to the Commission's attention that the highest
implicit fee formula may be unclear in some respects. Although the
Further Notice proposes an alternative formula for determining maximum
leased access rates, the highest implicit fee formula will continue to
be in effect on an interim basis until any new rules become effective.
The Order therefore clarified certain issues regarding the application
of the highest implicit fee formula. We do not, however, believe that
these clarifications will in any way solve the conceptual problems we
perceive to be present with the highest implicit fee, as described in
the Further Notice.
7. As a preliminary matter, we modified Section 76.970(c) to
correct certain errors contained therein so that the calculation of the
implicit fee is clear and easy to follow. Specifically, the rule states
that the subscriber revenue is deducted from the program license fee
when, in fact, the program license fee is supposed to be deducted from
the average subscriber revenue. We therefore corrected the language in
the rule accordingly. We also corrected the title of Section 76.977 of
the Commission's rules.
8. In addition, we believe that the highest implicit fee
calculation should not include the implicit fee for non-retransmission
consent broadcast signal and PEG access channels in determining which
channel has the highest implicit fee. For the carriage of local ``must
carry'' broadcast signals, cable operators typically collect a fee from
subscribers, but pay no direct charge for the programming. Because
there is no sharing of subscriber revenues between the system operator
and the programmer, the channel appears to be the most highly valued,
i.e., the programmer is willing to permit the cable operator to retain
the entire value of the channel and so these channels are often the
basis for the highest implicit fee calculation. Because of the
mandatory carriage rules and the compulsory copyright licensing system,
this does not seem to be a calculation that reflects a marketplace
decision as to the value of the channel. Similarly, where an operator
is required by the local franchising authority to carry PEG channels,
the cable operator has not made a marketplace decision to carry the
channels. Accordingly, we concluded that the implicit fee for each must
carry broadcast signal channel and PEG access channel should not be
considered for purposes of determining which implicit fee is the
highest. These channels should, however, be used to determine the
monthly average subscriber revenue per channel for all the channels on
the tier.
9. Furthermore, we believe that operators should calculate the
highest implicit fees on a tier-by-tier basis; that is, if the leased
access channel is to be on the BST, the calculation of the highest
implicit fee should be based on the BST channels, and, if the leased
access channel is to be on a CPST, the implicit fees should be
determined for the channels on that CPST.
10. We also clarified that programming revenues received by the
operator from an unaffiliated programmer, as opposed to programming
costs paid by the operator to the unaffiliated programmer, should not
be included in the highest implicit fee calculation. In certain
circumstances, such as with direct sales or ``home shopping'' channels,
the programmer pays the cable operator a percentage of its revenues,
rather than the operator paying the programmer a license fee. We
concluded that these
[[Page 16398]]
payments from the programmer to the operator should not be added into
the implicit fee calculation.
11. The Rate Order specifies that the difference between the rate
per month that the cable operator pays the programmer and the rate that
the subscriber pays per month for the programming should be multiplied
by the percentage of subscribers able to receive that channel or
programming. Neither the Rate Order nor our current rule explicitly
states that this number must then be multiplied by the number of
subscribers on the system. We modified our rule to clarify that, for
leased access programming on either the BST or a CPST, the highest per-
subscriber implicit fee should be multiplied by the number of current
subscribers who actually subscribe to the tier on which the leased
access channel will be placed. However, for leased access programming
in the per-channel/per-event program category, the highest per-
subscriber implicit fee should be multiplied by the average number of
subscribers that subscribe to the operator's premium services.
Requiring the highest per-subscriber implicit fee to be multiplied by
the actual number of subscribers to a leased access premium service
would unfairly penalize the operator for low subscribership to the
leased access programming. Using the average number of subscribers that
subscribe to the operator's premium services derives an approximation
that is equally fair for both the operator and the leased access
programmer.
12. Provision of Rate Information: Section 76.970(e) of the
Commission's rules provides that a schedule of commercial leased access
rates shall be provided to prospective leased access programmers upon
request. Our leased access complaint process has revealed that rate
information is often not provided in a timely manner. We therefore
modified our rule to require an operator to provide to a prospective
leased access programmer within seven business days of such
programmer's request: (a) A complete schedule of the operator's full
and part time leased access rates; (b) how much of its set-aside
capacity is available; (c) rates associated with technical and studio
costs; and (d) if specifically requested, a sample leased access
contract. Requests can be made by any reasonable means (in person, by
telephone, by facsimile, or by mail), and the information will be
deemed provided when the operator sends or gives the information to the
programmer. Because this information must be provided within seven
business days of the request, operators may not require that
prospective programmers first provide any information (e.g., fill out
an application) before the information listed above is provided. In
this context, we affirmed that, as stated in the Rate Order, the
Commission has the authority to, among other things, issue forfeitures
for violations of the leased access statute and rules. Failure to
provide the above information within the seven business day period will
constitute a violation of our rules.
III. Part-Time Rates
13. The Rate Order stated that maximum rates for leasing less than
a full-time channel could be calculated by prorating the monthly
maximum rate. The Rate Order did not, however, address whether
operators would be permitted to charge higher rates for part-time use
during more desirable ``prime time'' viewing hours. In TV-24 Sarasota,
Inc. v. Comcast Cablevision of West Florida, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 3512
(Cable Serv. Bur. 1994), the Cable Services Bureau stated that such
time of day pricing is permitted.
14. The only restriction on cable operators' rates under the
current rules is that they may not exceed the maximum monthly rate as
calculated on a monthly basis from the highest implicit fee. We
recognize, however, that the media industry places different values on
the different hours of the day in recognition of the different values
that different hours of the day have in the television marketplace
(i.e., ``prime time'' and ``non-prime time''). We therefore affirmed
the Cable Services Bureau's ruling in the TV-24 Sarasota case
referenced above and did not construe our rule as requiring a cable
operator to adhere to a rigid formula for determining its hourly leased
access rate by prorating its maximum rate for a full-time channel into
equal hourly amounts. We concluded that cable operators may charge
different time-of-day rates, provided that the total of the rates for a
day's schedule (i.e., a 24 hour block) does not exceed the maximum rate
for one day of a full-time leased channel (prorated from the monthly
rate) and provided that the overall pattern of time of day rates is
otherwise reasonable and not intended to unreasonably limit leased
access use. A reasonable time-of-day rate structure that is
appropriately related to time-of-day pricing in the media industry and
does not frustrate leased access channel use would not conflict with
our rules.
15. Accordingly, the rules we adopted on reconsideration provide
that operators may establish reasonable time-of-day pricing schedules.
In order to ensure that operators' part-time rates do not exceed the
maximum rate, we required operators to establish a schedule of rates,
or rate card, for different times of day, pursuant to which, if all
times were used, the sum of the part-time charges for any single leased
access channel within a 24-hour period would not exceed its maximum
rate for the leased access channel if the daily rate were prorated
evenly from the monthly maximum rate and were calculated in accordance
with Section 76.970 of our rules.
IV. Time Increments
16. In the Rate Order, we concluded that cable operators should be
required to accommodate leases of any time increment (e.g., leasing an
hour on a regular leased channel, leasing a whole channel, or leasing
for use a subscription service) in a reasonable manner because neither
Section 612, its legislative history nor the record indicated any
reason to prevent part-time leased access. On reconsideration, we
reaffirmed our conclusion that cable operators should be required to
accommodate both full and part-time leases. We recognize the legitimate
concern of cable operators that negotiating contracts for numerous
small time intervals may be an administrative and financial burden. As
a practical matter, however, the most common programming time increment
is typically one half to one hour. Imposing a full-time only
requirement could effectively preclude most leased access programmers
from obtaining access. Thus, in order to balance these competing
interests, we concluded that operators should not be required to accept
leases which are for less than a one-half hour interval. This decision
will allow programmers to lease time in relatively small increments,
but will avoid the administrative burden of providing leased access in
very small increments, such as one or two minutes. Although not
required to do so, operators may accept requests for less than one-half
hour.
V. Billing and Collection Services
17. Section 612(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Communications Act requires the
Commission to establish reasonable terms and conditions for billing of
rates to subscribers and for the collection of revenue from subscribers
for leased access channels (not including subscriber revenue generated
from the sale of products promoted on leased access programs such as
home shopping programs or infomercials). In the Rate Order, we required
cable operators to provide billing and collection services
[[Page 16399]]
to leased access programmers unless operators could demonstrate the
existence of third party billing and collection services which, in
terms of cost and accessibility, offer leased access programmers an
alternative substantially equivalent to that offered to comparable non-
leased access programmers. We noted in the Order that the mere
existence of third party billing and collection providers does not
relieve the operator of its obligation to provide these services.
Rather, the critical issue is whether, in terms of cost and
accessibility, these alternatives are substantially equivalent, to what
the operator offers non-leased access programmers. Operators have not
demonstrated to us that such alternatives exist to such an extent that
we should change our requirements adopted in the Rate Order. We remain
convinced, therefore, that pursuant to Section 612(c)(4)(A)(ii), we
have the authority to require cable operators to provide billing and
collection services for leased access cable programmers and that there
is a need for cable operators to provide such services.
18. In the Rate Order, we did not adopt specific rules relating to
the rates that might be charged for billing and/or collection services.
We stated that competition, where it exists, in the provision of
services of this type will set an upper limit on charges by cable
operators. On reconsideration, we did not believe that the adoption of
specific rate rules at this time is warranted. Cable operators should
have the incentive to quote reasonable and competitive rates in order
to obtain the additional revenues that billing and collection services
could generate for them. As we stated in the Rate Order, if a dispute
arises, we will address what constitutes a maximum rate for billing and
collection services on a case-by-case basis.
VI. Security Deposits
19. In the Rate Order, we agreed with cable operators that they
should have discretion to require reasonable security deposits or other
assurances from programmers that are unable to prepay in full for
leased access channel capacity. On reconsideration, we declined to set
specific monetary guidelines in this area and concluded that it is
sufficient to state that the term ``reasonable'' should be interpreted
in relation to the objective of such a deposit. That is, it should be
sufficient to insure the payment of lease rates, without discouraging
leased access. We clarified that operators may not demand a security
deposit for channel time from a programmer that pays the full rate in
advance. If carriage is not purchased for discreet or individual time
spots, but is leased on a full-time or periodic basis, the full rate
will be considered the full monthly rate (or whatever period of time is
relevant if the programming is periodic). Determinations of what is a
``reasonable'' security deposit will be made on a case-by-case basis,
taking into consideration the past relationship between the operator
and the programmer, the amount of time to be leased, the credit history
of the leased access programmer, the operator's practices with respect
to security deposits in other, similar contexts, and any other relevant
factors.
VII. Calculation of Statutory Set-Aside Requirements
20. Section 612 of the Communications Act requires a cable system
to set aside up to 15 percent of its activated channels for leased
commercial access. The statutory set-aside requirements for leased
commercial access channels are expressed as a percentage of ``channels
not otherwise required for use by federal law or regulation.'' 47
U.S.C. 532(b)(1). The Rate Order did not specify what channels are
considered as required for use by federal law or regulation.
21. We clarified that, for purposes of calculating the set-aside
requirements, only must-carry channels are excluded, as these channels
are required for use by federal law. Retransmission consent and PEG
channels, on the other hand, are not required by federal law, although
federal statutory provisions permit local authorities to require
operators to provide PEG channels and also require operators to obtain
retransmission consent in some cases. Therefore, we determined that
retransmission consent and PEG channels will be included among
activated channels for purposes of determining a systems' leased access
set-aside requirements.
VIII. Reporting Requirements
22. We did not require cable operators to make the contracts
underlying their leased access rates public. We believe that this could
be unnecessarily intrusive on business relationships between operators
and non-leased access programmers. However, we noted that upon request
from the Commission in the context of a leased access complaint,
operators are required to justify fully their leased access rates,
including by presentation of underlying contracts if necessary, subject
to the operators' right under our rules to request confidentiality of
this information.
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
23. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law
96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (``Regulatory Flexibility
Act''), the Commission's final analysis with respect to this Order on
Reconsideration is as follows:
24. Need and purpose of this action. The Commission, in compliance
with Section 9 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. 532 (1992), pertaining to leased
commercial access, is required to adopt rules and procedures intended
to ensure the availability of and accessibility to leased commercial
access on cable systems.
25. Summary of issues raised by the public in response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. There were no comments
submitted in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
26. Significant alternatives considered and rejected. Petitioners
for reconsideration did not submit comments analyzing the
administrative burden of the leased access rules pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Commission nonetheless has attempted to
minimize such burdens.
X. Procedural Provisions
27. Redesignation of Docket. We believe that it would facilitate
consideration of leased commercial access issues by the Commission if
they were separated from MM Docket 92-266 and redesignated as a
separate docket. Accordingly, we are redesignating the Commission's
consideration of leased commercial access issues as CS Docket No. 96-
60. Parties are required to caption filings in response to this Order
under this new docket number.
XI. Ordering Clauses
28. Accordingly, It is ordered that the Petitions for
Reconsideration in MM Docket No. 92-266 which pertain to commercial
leased access are granted in part and denied in part.
29. It is further ordered that Part 76 of the Commission's rules is
hereby amended as indicated below. The amendments to 47 CFR 76.970 (a),
(b), (c), (d), 76.971(g) and 76.977 shall go into effect 30 days
following publication of this Order on Reconsideration in the Federal
Register. The amendments to 47 CFR 76.970(e) impose information
collections, and will therefore not go into effect until approved by
OMB.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This Order contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing
[[Page 16400]]
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB
to comment on the information collections contained in this Order, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
Public and agency comments are due May 15, 1996; OMB notification of
action is due 60 days from date of publication of this Order in the
Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
OMB Approval Number: 3060-0568.
Title: Section 76.970 Commercial leaesed access rates; 76.971
Commercial leased access terms and conditions.
Type of Review: Revision of existing collection.
Respondents: Business and other for profit.
Number of Respondents: 6,270 cable systems.
Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour per respondent for
recordkeeping and sending the leased access schedule and other
information to prospective leased access programmers. 1 hour per
respondent to implement 76.971 third party disclosure requirements. 12
hours per respondent for completing the proposed ``cost schedule'',
instead of the existing ``maximum rate schedule''. If the proposed
``cost schedule'' is not adopted by the Commission, the burden for
completing the ``maximum rate schedule'' is 4 hours per respondent.
Total Annual Burden: 87,780 hours. If the proposed ``cost
schedule'' is not adopted, the Commission will further adjust the
burden for this collection from 12 hours per respondent in completing
the ``cost schedule'' to 4 hours per respondent to continue to use the
existing ``maximum rate schedule''. This would result in an adjustment
reduction of 50,160 hours (6,270 x 8 hours), leaving a total burden of
87,780-50,160=37,620 hours.
Estimated costs per respondent: We estimate the postage and
stationery costs incurred by cable operators for record keeping
activities and for sending out leased access information to prospective
programmers, as required, to be roughly $4.00 per respondent. We
therefore report a total annual cost of $25,000 for all respondents.
Needs and Uses: The information collected is used by the
prospective leased access programmers and the Commission to verify rate
calculations for leased access channels. The Commission's leased access
requirements were designed to promote diversity of programming sources
and competition in programming delivery as required by Section 612 of
the Communications Act, and serve to eliminate uncertainty in
negotiations for leased commercial access.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 76--CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
1. The authority citation for Part 76 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 2, 3, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 48 Stat. as
amended, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1101; 47
U.S.C. Secs. 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 532, 535, 542,
543, 552, as amended, 106 Stat. 1460.
2. Section 76.970 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
(d), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.970 Commercial leased access rates.
(a) Cable operators shall designate channel capacity for commercial
use by persons unaffiliated with the operator in accordance with the
requirement of 47 U.S.C. 532. For purposes of 47 U.S.C. 532(b)(1)(A)
and (B), only those channels that must be carried pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
534 and 535 qualify as channels that are required for use by Federal
law or regulation.
(b) The maximum commercial leased access rate that a cable operator
may charge is the highest implicit fee charged any unaffiliated
programmer (excluding leased access programmers, non-retransmission
consent broadcasters and public, educational and governmental access
programmers) within the same programming category.
(c) The per subscriber implicit fee charged an unaffiliated
programmer shall be calculated by determining the monthly price a
subscriber pays to view the programming of the unaffiliated programmer
and subtracting the monthly price per subscriber that the operator pays
to carry the programming of the unaffiliated programmer. The implicit
fee is determined by multiplying the per subscriber implicit fee by:
(1) If the leased access programming is carried on a programming
tier, the number of subscribers that subscribe to the programming tier
on which the leased access programming is carried; or
(2) If the leased access programming is carried as a premium
service, the average number of subscribers that subscribe to
unaffiliated non-leased access programming services that are carried as
premium services. The implicit fee for a contracted service may not
include fees, stated or implied, for services other than the provision
of channel capacity (e.g., billing and collection, marketing, or studio
services).
(d) For each of the three programming categories as defined in
paragraph (f) of this section, the highest implicit fee charged any
unaffiliated programmer (excluding leased access programmers, non-
retransmission consent broadcasters and public, educational and
governmental access programmers) in each category shall be the maximum
monthly leased access rate per subscriber that the operator could
charge a commercial leased access programmer in the same category. The
highest implicit fee shall be based on contracts in effect in the
previous calendar year. Maximum rates for shorter periods can be
calculated either by prorating the monthly maximum rate uniformly, or
by developing a schedule of and applying different rates for different
times of day, provided that the total of the rates for a 24-hour period
does not exceed the maximum rate for one day of a full-time leased
access channel (prorated evenly from the monthly rate derived in
accordance with paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section).
(e) Within seven business days of a prospective leased access
programmer's request, a cable system operator must provide such
programmer with the following information:
(1) A complete schedule of the operator's full-time and part-time
leased access rates;
(2) How much of the operator's leased access set-aside capacity is
available;
(3) Rates associated with technical and studio costs; and
(4) If specifically requested, a sample leased access contract.
Requests under this paragraph (e) may be made by any reasonable means
(e.g., in person, by telephone, by facsimile or by mail), and the
information shall be deemed provided when the operator sends or gives
the information to the programmer. Operators shall maintain,
[[Page 16401]]
for Commission inspections, sufficient supporting documentation to
justify the scheduled rates, including supporting contracts,
calculations of the implicit fees, and justifications for all
adjustments.
* * * * *
3. Section 76.971 is amended by adding new paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 76.971 Commercial leased access terms and conditions.
* * * * *
(g) Operators are not required to accept leases which are for less
than a one-half hour interval.
4. Section 76.977 is amended by revising the heading to read as
follows:
Sec. 76.977 Minority and educational programming used in lieu of
designated commercial leased access capacity.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-9194 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9176 Approval of Colorado's Petition To Relax the Federal Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure Volatility Standard for 1996 and 1997
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16391-16396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9176]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-5457-5]
Approval of Colorado's Petition To Relax the Federal Gasoline
Reid Vapor Pressure Volatility Standard for 1996 and 1997
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16392]]
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or the
``Agency'') is issuing as a direct final rule its limited approval of
the State of Colorado's petition to relax the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
standard that applies to gasoline introduced into commerce in the
Denver-Boulder ozone nonattainment area from June 1 to September 15.
The standard is to be relaxed from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to
9.0 psi for the years 1996 and 1997. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, Federal RVP standards were promulgated by EPA on
June 11, 1990 and revised on December 12, 1991. Colorado's petition is
based on evidence that the Denver-Boulder area does not need the 7.8
psi standard to maintain ozone attainment in the near term and that the
7.8 psi standard would impose significant costs on industry and
consumers. Colorado's petition requests a continuation of previous
relaxations of the RVP standard. Prior to today's action, EPA has
approved relaxations for the past four years, from 1992 through 1995.
This action is being taken without prior notice because EPA
believes that this rulemaking is noncontroversial due to the limited
scope of this rulemaking, Colorado's continued attainment of the ozone
standard and for the reasons discussed in this document.
DATES: This action will be effective on May 30, 1996 unless EPA
receives adverse or critical comments by May 15, 1996. If EPA receives
adverse comments by that date, EPA will withdraw this action by
publishing a document in the Federal Register. In a separate action
published today, EPA is concurrently proposing approval of Colorado's
petition to relax the Reid Vapor Pressure standard. All correspondence
should be directed to the addresses shown below.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking have been placed in
Docket A-96-10 by EPA. The docket is located at the Docket Office of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, Room M-1500 in Waterside Mall and may be inspected from 8:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket material.
Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to the Air
Docket Section at the above address. A copy should also be sent to the
EPA contact person listed below at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 401 M
Street SW. (6406-J), Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Winstead McCall of the Fuels
and Energy Division at 202-233-9029 at the above address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 19, 1987, EPA proposed a two-phase national program to
reduce summertime gasoline volatility.1 EPA found that gasoline
had become increasingly volatile, which caused an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline powered sources. These emissions
are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a precursor of ozone and a major
contributor to the nation's serious ground level ozone problem, which
results in harm to human health and to the public welfare. The Agency
published a Notice of Final Rulemaking on March 22, 1989 that put into
place Phase I of the program to require VOC reductions available
through refining changes that could be accomplished by the beginning of
the 1989 summer ozone season.2 The Phase II volatility standards
were finalized on June 11, 1990 3 and were to go 4 into
effect May 1, 1992.4 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 52 FR 31274 (August 16, 1987).
\2\ 54 FR 11868 (March 22, 1989).
\3\ 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990).
\4\ As described in greater detail below, EPA re-promulgated the
Phase II regulations to incorporate changes in the federal RVP
program as directed by the Act.
\5\ For further detail, see the previous notice relaxing the
Colorado RVP standard. 59 FR 15629 (April 4, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (``CAA'' or ``the Act''),
however, established new requirements for the fuel volatility program.
Section 211(h) of the Act required that EPA modify the Phase II fuel
volatility program. Section 211(h)(1) requires that EPA promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce,
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season as defined by the Administrator. It further provides that EPA
shall establish more stringent RVP standards in nonattainment areas if
EPA finds such standards are ``necessary to generally achieve
comparable evaporative emissions reductions (on a per vehicle basis) in
nonattainment areas, taking into consideration the enforceability of
such standards, the need of an area for emission control, and economic
factors.'' The Act also allows EPA to impose an RVP standard lower than
9.0 psi in any former ozone nonattainment area that is redesignated to
attainment.
On May 29, 1991, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
which modified the Phase II summer ozone volatility standards to
reflect new section 211(h) of the Act.6 In this document, EPA
proposed that, beginning in 1992, the RVP standard would be 9.0 psi in
all attainment areas where this standard was not already in place. This
would prohibit the sale of gasoline with a RVP above 9.0 psi during the
summer ozone season in all areas designated attainment for ozone,
beginning in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, EPA proposed
to retain the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990.
On December 12, 1991, EPA finalized these modifications.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991).
\7\ 56 FR 64704 (December 12, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver-Boulder metropolitan area is designated nonattainment
for the ozone NAAQS. The nonattainment area encompasses Denver's entire
six-county Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area, with the
exception of Rocky Mountain National Park in Boulder County and the
eastern portions of Adams and Arapahoe Counties. Under the Phase II
rule finalized on December 12, 1991, the standard applicable in the
Denver-Boulder nonattainment area beginning in 1992 was 9.0 psi in May
and 7.8 psi from June 1 to September 15. The standard applicable in
other areas of Colorado was 9.0 psi from May 1 to September 15.
On November 6, 1991, EPA issued its ozone nonattainment
designations in the Federal Register pursuant to section 107(d)(1)(C)
of the Act. In that document, EPA designated the Denver-Boulder
nonattainment area to be a ``transitional area'' as determined under
section 185A of the Act. A transitional area is ``an area designated as
an ozone nonattainment area as of the date of enactment of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 [that] has not violated the national primary
ambient air quality standard for ozone for the 36-month period
commencing on January 1, 1987, and ending on December 31, 1989.''
As stated in the preamble for the Phase II volatility controls
8 and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility
standards published on May 29, 1991,9 EPA will rely on states to
initiate changes to the EPA volatility program that they believe will
enhance local air quality and/or increase the economic efficiency of
the program,
[[Page 16393]]
within the statutory limits. The Governor of a state may petition EPA
to set a less stringent volatility standard for some month or months.
The petition must demonstrate the existence of a particular local
economic impact that makes such changes appropriate and must
demonstrate that sufficient alternative programs are available to
achieve attainment and maintenance of the ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Phase II final rulemaking established procedures by
which states could petition EPA for more or less stringent
volatility standards. 55 FR 23660 (June 11, 1980).
\9\ 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Previous EPA Approvals of Colorado's Petitions
A. Petition for 1992 and 1993
On October 16, 1991, Governor Roy Romer requested that EPA amend
the federal RVP standards for the Denver-Boulder ozone nonattainment
area to relax the 7.8 psi standard to 9.0 psi for 1992 and 1993. The
Governor further requested that the 7.8 psi standard take effect
beginning in June 1994, unless the State of Colorado specifically
requested via the Colorado Ozone Maintenance State Implementation (SIP)
plan that the 9.0 psi standard be retained.
On May 12, 1992, EPA proposed approval of Colorado's petition to
relax until 1994 the gasoline volatility standard for the Denver-
Boulder nonattainment area to 9.0 psi. EPA found the request justified
based on the petition itself, the evidence of the costs of
implementation of the 7.8 psi standard and the environmental need for
the 7.8 psi standard. The petition and available evidence sufficiently
demonstrated that retention of the 7.8 psi standard would impose
significant costs on consumers and industry relative to a 9.0 psi
standard, and that the 7.8 psi standard was not necessary for emission
control until 1994 in light of the current transitional status of the
Denver-Boulder area. EPA also determined that a demonstration by
Colorado that sufficient alternative programs were in place to insure
future attainment of the ozone standard was not necessary due to the
State's consistent attainment of the ozone NAAQS since 1986. Finally,
Colorado assured EPA that a two-year relaxation of the standard would
provide sufficient time for the State to complete an ozone maintenance
plan. Such a plan would allow the State to determine if 7.8 psi
gasoline was necessary for continued attainment in future years. Thus,
at that time, the State could determine if a permanent change in the
standard was appropriate. EPA finalized the relaxation of the standard
on April 30, 1993. (For further details, see 53 FR 26067, April 30,
1993.)
B. Petition for 1994 and 1995
On September 15, 1993, Governor Roy Romer again requested that EPA
amend the federal RVP standard for the Denver-Boulder nonattainment
area to extend the relaxation of the RVP standard of 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi
to cover the years 1994 and 1995. The Governor further requested that
the 7.8 psi standard take effect beginning in June of 1996, unless the
State of Colorado specifically requested, via the Colorado Ozone
Maintenance SIP, that the 9.0 psi standard be retained.
As with the previous petition, the petition and available evidence
indicated that retention of the 7.8 psi standard would impose
significant costs on consumers and industry and that the 7.8 psi
standard was not necessary in the short term, given the current
transitional status of the Denver-Boulder area and the area's record of
continued attainment of the ozone standard.
Because of the area's classification as transitional, EPA was
required to determine whether the area had in fact attained the ozone
standard by December 31, 1991. If the Administrator determined that the
area had attained the standard, the state was required to submit,
within twelve months of the determination, a maintenance plan meeting
the requirements of section 175A of the Act.10 In its 1993
petition, the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) informed
EPA that the ozone maintenance plan had been delayed due to a lack of
staff resources, but that Colorado was committed to developing a
maintenance plan by early 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ On October 22, 1992, EPA Region VIII sent a letter to
Governor Romer stating that the Denver-Boulder transitional area had
not violated the ozone NAAQS during the period from January 1, 1987
to December 31, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the foregoing, EPA issued a direct final rule on April 4,
1994, relaxing the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the
years 1994 and 1995. For 1996, the standard would return to 7.8 psi.
(For further details about this action, see 59 FR 15629, April 4,
1994.)
III. Discussion of Colorado's Petition to Relax the RVP Standard for
1996 and 1997
On December 22, 1995, Govenor Roy Romer sent a letter to William
Yellowtail, Administrator of EPA Region VIII, requesting that EPA amend
the federal RVP standard for the Denver-Boulder nonattainment area to
permanently extend the relaxation of the RVP standard of 7.8 psi to 9.0
psi. Governor Romer specifically requested EPA to retain the 9.0 psi
standard for the 1996 and all future summers, unless the standard is
modified by the Colorado Ozone Maintenance State Implementation Plan
(SIP). Colorado is still in the process of redesignation from
nonattainment status for ozone to attainment status.
Governor Romer's request results from specific resolutions signed
by the Chairman of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on
September 22, 1995, which endorsed a permanent relaxation of the RVP
standard based upon testimony provided at a public hearing on August
17, 1995, and after consideration of the environmental and economic
impact of the 7.8 psi federal standard. Documents pertaining to this
hearing are available in the docket for this rulemaking. In forwarding
this request to EPA, Governor Romer is following procedures stated in
the preamble for the Phase II volatility rule. Requests for changes to
the federal volatility standard must include the following:
(1) documentation of the local economic impact of the otherwise
applicable standard, and, (2) an indication that sufficient alternative
programs are available to achieve attainment and maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS.
A. Local Economic and Environmental Factors
The petition and available evidence submitted indicate that
retention of the 7.8 psi standard would impose significant costs on
consumers and industry and that the 7.8 psi standard is not necessary
in the short term given the current transitional status of the Denver-
Boulder area and the area's record of continued attainment of the ozone
standard. Documentation submitted by Colorado indicates that the costs
of implementing a 7.8 psi RVP standard (from the 9.0 psi standard which
has been in place for the past four years) would cost the consumer
about 1.1 cents more per gallon of gasoline and overall, would cost
over $3,000,000.
In a letter of June 20, 1995, the local refinery industry states
that in the 1993 hearing before the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission, they testified that imposing a 7.8 psi standard at that
time in the Denver-Boulder area would cause many refiners to make
irreversible capital improvements. They stated that these improvements
may not be needed if the maintenance SIP indicates 7.8 psi gasoline is
not needed to maintain ozone compliance. In addition, EPA notes that
because the rest of the Colorado market requires a 9.0 psi standard,
any refinery changes made in
[[Page 16394]]
order to comply with the 7.8 psi standard would be in response only to
the market demand in the Denver-Boulder area. In the June 20 letter,
representatives of the local refinery industry state that the cost
situation has not changed since 1993. In testimony presented at an
August 17, 1995 hearing before the Colorado Air quality Control
Commission, the Air Pollution Control Board (APCD) of the Colorado
Department of Health stated that these increased refinery costs would
vary among refiners.
Minutes and other documentation from the hearing held before the
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on August 17, 1995, by the Air
Pollution Control Board (APCD) of the Colorado Department of Health
indicate that the APCD supports a relaxation of the RVP standard. There
have been no monitored violations of the ozone NAAQS since 1986. The
APCD noted that the volatility standard for the Denver-Boulder
nonattainment area from 1992 through 1995 was 9.0 psi and no violations
of the standard were recorded. (However, there were single exceedances
of the ozone NAAQS at two monitoring stations during 1993 and one
exceedance at another in 1995.) The APCD also presented modelling data
showing that the mobile source VOC inventory should decrease over the
relevant period, even with projected increases in vehicle miles
travelled (VMT). The APCD concluded that the Denver-Boulder area would
be able to continue attainment of the ozone standard for 1996 and 1997
with 9.0 psi RVP gasoline.
B. Sufficient Alternative Programs
Because Colorado has not violated the ozone standard since 1986,
EPA does not believe it is necessary for the State to show that
sufficient alternative programs are in place to provide for attainment
of the ozone NAAQS. EPA approved the Ozone State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for the Denver-Boulder area in 1983.11 This plan relied upon
emission reductions from the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and
an Inspection and Maintenance Program to provide for attainment of the
ozone NAAQS by the statutory deadline of December 31, 1987. Since the
beginning of 1986, none of the area's several ozone air quality
monitors has recorded a violation of the ozone NAAQS. Because the
available data showed no violations, EPA did not require the State to
submit a revised Ozone SIP in 1988 during EPA's nationwide ozone SIP
evaluation. As noted above, the area is currently classified as a
``transitional'' area under section 185(A) of the Act. Under these
circumstances, Colorado need not provide for alternative ozone control
programs in order to obtain a relaxation of the RVP standard to 9.0
psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 48 FR 55284 (December 12, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Maintenance Plan
According to Colorado's 1991 petition, the APCD was to have
completed an ozone maintenance plan for the Denver area by June of
1993. The maintenance plan is necessary in order for EPA to redesignate
the area as having attained the ozone standard.12 At the hearing
on the 1993 petition, the Commission raised questions regarding the
inability of the APCD to complete the ozone maintenance plan on time.
At that time, the APCD testified that due to resource limitations
caused by programmatic obligations under the Act, an ozone maintenance
plan assumed a lower priority and could not be completed by the June
1993 deadline. The APCD then concluded that with a two-year extension
of the relaxed RVP standard, a maintenance plan could be developed and
submitted to EPA for approval in early 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ An ozone maintenance plan that demonstrates long term (10
years) maintenance of the ozone NAAQS must be developed by the state
before an area can be redesignated to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there were additional delays, the APCD has now developed a
maintenance plan which has been proposed for public hearing by the
Commission. The public hearing date and date of consideration by the
Commission is scheduled for March 21, 1996. The Commission is expected
to adopt the maintenance plan on that date and request that Governor
Romer forward a redesignation request, including the maintenance plan,
to EPA for approval thereafter. A copy of the maintenance plan as
proposed for public hearing is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
IV. EPA's Final Action
A. Relaxation of Colorado's RVP Standard for 1996 and 1997
EPA is approving as a direct final rule the State of Colorado's
request to relax the federal volatility standard for the Denver-Boulder
nonattainment area from the current standard of 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
Colorado requested relaxation of the standard for the 1996 and all
future summers. EPA is only approving this relaxation, however, for two
years: 1996 and 1997. EPA cannot approve a permanent change in the RVP
standard until Colorado demonstrates that it can maintain compliance
with the ozone standard. Colorado has developed a maintenance plan
which, with its ozone redesignation request, the State expects to
submit to EPA for approval in the near future. Section 211(h) of the
Act requires EPA to promulgate regulations that shall establish RVP
standards in a nonattainment area that are more stringent than 9.0 psi
``as the Administrator finds necessary to generally achieve comparable
evaporative emissions (on a per-vehicle basis) in nonattainment areas,
taking into consideration the enforceability of such standards, the
need of an area for emission control, and economic factors.'' Based on
Colorado's petition and supporting evidence, EPA believes that the
requested relaxation of the standard is justified for a limited two-
year time period.
The petition and available evidence indicate that retention of the
7.8 psi standard would impose significant costs on consumers and
industry and that the 7.8 psi standard is not necessary in the short
term given the current transitional status of the Denver-Boulder area
and the area's record of continued attainment of the ozone standard.
Colorado has submitted testimony regarding the costs of implementing a
7.8 psi RVP standard which states that a savings of over $3,000,000
would be realized in the Denver-Boulder area during the summer ozone
season based on a savings of approximately 1.1 cents per gallon. This
savings is reasonably close to the savings EPA predicted in the cost
analysis it performed on Colorado's 1991 petition, and circumstances
have not changed significantly in the interim.13 EPA believes,
therefore, that retention of the 7.8 psi standard would impose
significant costs on consumers and industry relative to a 9.0 psi
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A detailed analysis of the costs associated with the RVP
program in Colorado can be found in air docket A-92-08, created for
the proposal to grant Colorado's petition for relaxation for 1992
and 1993. 57 FR 20234 (May 12, 1992). This analysis estimated cost
savings of $3,500,000 to $4,000,000 in the Denver-Boulder area
during the ozone season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, EPA agrees with Colorado that the Denver-Boulder area
will not need a 7.8 psi standard to comply with the ozone NAAQS in the
next two years. The area has not violated the standard since 1986.
Since this time, summertime gasoline volatility has been reduced
significantly through the implementation of Phase I and Phase II of the
federal RVP standards. Moreover, ongoing vehicle fleet turnover, as
well as several new requirements of the CAA (such as tighter tailpipe
standards, longer useful life definitions, on-board
[[Page 16395]]
diagnostic and refueling equipment, and enhanced inspection and
maintenance requirements) will continue to help control overall mobile
source emissions of VOCs.
Although EPA believes that a short term relaxation of the RVP
standard will not cause a violation of the ozone NAAQS in the Denver-
Boulder area, EPA is concerned regarding the area's long term
compliance. The Denver-Boulder area's growing population and increase
in vehicle miles travelled generate questions regarding whether
existing emission controls are sufficient to provide for maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS over the long term. Moreover, the area did experience
single exceedances during the 1993 and 1995 ozone seasons at three
monitoring stations. Therefore, the long term maintenance of the
standard in the Denver-Boulder area is in question. Until Colorado
demonstrates that it can maintain compliance with the ozone NAAQS over
the long term, as should be shown in its upcoming maintenance plan, EPA
could not approve a permanent change in the RVP standard for the
Denver-Boulder area.
As previously stated, Colorado is developing a maintenance plan for
the Denver-Boulder area, which should be completed during the two year
period of this relaxation of the RVP standard. The maintenance plan
must show that the ozone standard will be maintained for a period of at
least ten years. The development of this maintenance plan will give
Colorado an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive air quality
modelling exercise to determine what control measures will be necessary
to provide for long term maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. Along with the
existing SIP measures, tighter gasoline volatility and other strategies
will be evaluated to determine the most appropriate and cost-effective
strategy for maintaining the NAAQS. Today's action should provide
Colorado with sufficient time to complete an ozone maintenance plan and
the redesignation of the Denver-Boulder area to attainment.
While the maintenance plan is being developed, EPA believes that
air quality will be protected by the ongoing control programs. The
volatility standard for Denver-Boulder will drop to 7.8 psi in 1998
unless additional action by the Commission and the Governor, backed by
a comprehensive maintenance plan, is taken to extend the 9.0 psi
standard.
B. Direct Final Rulemaking
This action is being taken without prior proposal because EPA
believes that this relaxation in the RVP regulation is
noncontroversial. The effect of this rulemaking is limited to the
Denver-Boulder, Colorado nonattainment area, and EPA anticipates no
significant comments on this action. This action extends a previously
approved relaxation in the RVP standard and will provide Colorado the
necessary time to complete an ozone maintenance plan, at which time a
long term projection will be made regarding the need for a more
stringent RVP standard.
This action will be effective 45 days from the date of this Federal
Register document, unless adverse or critical comments are received
within 30 days of today's document. If EPA receives such comments, this
action will be withdrawn by publishing a subsequent document in the
Federal Register. All public comments in this regard received within
the 30-day comment period will then be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on EPA's proposal to approve Colorado's petition published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. No second comment period on this
action will be instituted. If no such comments are received, this
action will be effective May 30, 1996.
V. Environmental Impact
The proposed amendment is not expected to have any adverse
environmental effects. The Denver-Boulder six county nonattainment area
has met the NAAQS since 1986. Current air quality is expected to be
further maintained by a 9.0 psi standard for 1996 and 1997.
VI. Economic Impact
The proposed relaxation of the 7.8 psi standard to 9.0 psi will
result in a cost reduction in refining, and an increase in summertime
gasoline supply levels. For each summer, this translates into
approximately a 1.1 cent per gallon cost savings to consumers at the
pump.
VII. Administrative Requirements
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 through
612, EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Administrator may certify, however, that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In such
circumstances, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that
these regulations will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The regulatory revision is limited to the
Denver-Boulder area and should have no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. These regulations, therefore, do
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Under Executive Order 12886,14 the Agency must determine
whether a 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 entitlements, 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.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review. Specifically, this rule will not
have an annual effect on the economy in excess of $100 million, have a
significant adverse impact on competition, investment, employment or
innovation, or result in a major price increase. In fact, as discussed
above, this action will reduce the cost of compliance with Federal
requirements in this area.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501, EPA must
obtain OMB clearance for any activity that will involve collecting
substantially the same information from 10 or more non-Federal
respondents. This direct final rule does not create any new information
requirements or contain any new information collection activities.
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under Section
[[Page 16396]]
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 regulatory relaxation in this action
does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs
of $100 million or more to those entities mentioned above.
The statutory authority for the action in this action today is
granted to EPA by Sections 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7545 and 7601(a)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle
pollution, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 4, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth 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: Sections 114, 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended, (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a)).
2. In Sec. 80.27 the table in paragraph (a)(2) introductory text is
amended by revising the entry for Colorado to read as follows:
Sec. 80.27 Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
Applicable Standards \1\ 1992 and Subsequent Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State May June July August Sept
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
Colorado \2\................................... 9.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).
\2\ The standard for 1992 through 1997 in the Denver-Boulder nonattainment area will be 9.0 for June 1 through
September 15.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-9176 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8810 Notice and Collection of Withdrawal Liability; Adoption of New Interest Rate
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8810]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Part 2644
Notice and Collection of Withdrawal Liability; Adoption of New
Interest Rate
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is an amendment to the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation's regulation on Notice and Collection of Withdrawal
Liability. That regulation incorporates certain interest rates
published by another Federal agency. This amendment adds to the
appendix of that regulation a new interest rate to be effective from
April 1, 1996, to June 30, 1996. The effect of the amendment is to
advise the public of the new rate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; telephone
202-326-4024 (202-326-4179 for TTY and TDD). These are not toll-free
numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 4219(c) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation promulgated a final regulation on Notice and
Collection of Withdrawal Liability. That regulation, codified at 29 CFR
part 2644, deals with the rate of interest to be charged by
multiemployer pension plans on withdrawal liability payments that are
overdue or in default, or to be credited by plans on overpayments of
withdrawal liability. The regulation allows plans to set rates, subject
to certain restrictions. Where a plan does not set the interest rate,
Sec. 2644.3(b) of the regulation provides that the rate to be charged
or credited for any calendar quarter is the average quoted prime rate
on short-term commercial loans for the fifteenth day (or the next
business day if the fifteenth day is not a business day) of the month
preceding the beginning of the quarter, as reported by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Statistical Release H.15
(``Selected Interest Rates'').
Because the regulation incorporates interest rates published in
Statistical Release H.15, that release is the authoritative source for
the rates that are to be applied under the regulation. As a convenience
to persons using the regulation, however, the PBGC collects the
applicable rates and republishes them in an appendix to part 2644. This
amendment adds to this appendix the interest rate of 8.25 percent,
which will be effective from April 1, 1996, through June 30, 1996. This
rate represents a decrease of 0.50 percent from the rate in effect for
the first quarter of 1996. This rate is based on the prime rate in
effect on March 15, 1996.
The appendix to 29 CFR part 2644 does not prescribe interest rates
under the regulation; the rates prescribed in the regulation are those
published in Statistical Release H.15. The appendix merely collects and
republishes the rates in a convenient place. Thus, the interest rates
in the appendix are informational only. Accordingly, the PBGC finds
that notice of and public comment on this amendment would be
unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. For the above reasons,
the PBGC also believes that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective immediately.
The PBGC has determined that this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the criteria set forth in Executive Order
12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for
this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply.
See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2644
Employee benefit plans, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, part 2644 of subchapter F of
chapter XXVI of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
PART 2644--NOTICE AND COLLECTION OF WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY
1. The authority citation for part 2644 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1399(c)(6).
2. Appendix A to part 2644 is amended by adding to the end of the
table a new entry to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 2644--Table of Interest Rates
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Rate
From To quotation (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
04/01/96............................... 6/30/96 3/15/96 8.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 3d day of April 1996.
Martin Slate,
Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-8810 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7708-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8809 Valuation of Plan Benefits in Single-Employer Plans; Valuation of Plan Benefits and Plan Assets Following Mass Withdrawal; Amendments Adopting Additional PBGC Rates
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16388-16391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8809]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Parts 2619 and 2676
Valuation of Plan Benefits in Single-Employer Plans; Valuation of
Plan Benefits and Plan Assets Following Mass Withdrawal; Amendments
Adopting Additional PBGC Rates
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation's regulations on Valuation of Plan Benefits in Single-
Employer Plans and Valuation of Plan Benefits and Plan Assets Following
Mass Withdrawal. The former regulation contains the interest
assumptions that the PBGC uses to value benefits under terminating
single-employer plans. The latter regulation contains the interest
assumptions for valuations of multiemployer plans that have undergone
mass withdrawal. The amendments set out in this final rule adopt the
interest assumptions applicable to single-employer plans with
termination dates in May 1996, and to multiemployer plans with
valuation dates in May 1996. The effect of these amendments is to
advise the public of the adoption of these assumptions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024
(202-326-4179 for TTY and TDD).
[[Page 16389]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule adopts the May 1996 interest
assumptions to be used under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's
regulations on Valuation of Plan Benefits in Single-Employer Plans (29
CFR part 2619, the ``single-employer regulation'') and Valuation of
Plan Benefits and Plan Assets Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part
2676, the ``multiemployer regulation'').
Part 2619 sets forth the methods for valuing plan benefits of
terminating single-employer plans covered under title IV of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. Under
ERISA section 4041(c), all single-employer plans wishing to terminate
in a distress termination must value guaranteed benefits and ``benefit
liabilities,'' i.e., all benefits provided under the plan as of the
plan termination date, using the formulas set forth in part 2619,
subpart C. (Plans terminating in a standard termination may, for
purposes of the Standard Termination Notice filed with PBGC, use these
formulas to value benefit liabilities, although this is not required.)
In addition, when the PBGC terminates an underfunded plan involuntarily
pursuant to ERISA section 4042(a), it uses the subpart C formulas to
determine the amount of the plan's underfunding. Part 2676 prescribes
rules for valuing benefits and certain assets of multiemployer plans
under sections 4219(c)(1)(D) and 4281(b) of ERISA.
Appendix B to part 2619 sets forth the interest rates and factors
under the single-employer regulation. Appendix B to part 2676 sets
forth the interest rates and factors under the multiemployer
regulation. Because these rates and factors are intended to reflect
current conditions in the financial and annuity markets, it is
necessary to update the rates and factors periodically.
The PBGC issues two sets of interest rates and factors, one set to
be used for the valuation of benefits to be paid as annuities and one
set for the valuation of benefits to be paid as lump sums. The same
assumptions apply to terminating single-employer plans and to
multiemployer plans that have undergone a mass withdrawal. This
amendment adds to appendix B to parts 2619 and 2676 sets of interest
rates and factors for valuing benefits in single-employer plans that
have termination dates during May 1996 and multiemployer plans that
have undergone mass withdrawal and have valuation dates during May
1996.
For annuity benefits, the interest rates will be 6.00% for the
first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.75% thereafter. For
benefits to be paid as lump sums, the interest assumptions to be used
by the PBGC will be 5.00% for the period during which benefits are in
pay status, 4.25% during the seven-year period directly preceding the
benefit's placement in pay status, and 4.0% during any other years
preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. The above annuity
interest assumptions represent an increase (from those in effect for
April 1996) of .20 percent for the first 20 years following the
valuation date and are otherwise unchanged. The lump sum interest
assumptions represent an increase (from those in effect for April 1996)
of .25 percent for the period during which benefits are in pay status
and the seven years directly preceding that period; they are otherwise
unchanged.
Generally, the interest rates and factors under these regulations
are in effect for at least one month. However, the PBGC publishes its
interest assumptions each month regardless of whether they represent a
change from the previous month's assumptions. The assumptions normally
will be published in the Federal Register by the 15th of the preceding
month or as close to that date as circumstances permit.
The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on these
amendments are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This
finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest rates
and factors promptly so that the rates and factors can reflect, as
accurately as possible, current market conditions.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation
of benefits in single-employer plans whose termination dates fall
during May 1996, and in multiemployer plans that have undergone mass
withdrawal and have valuation dates during May 1996, the PBGC finds
that good cause exists for making the rates and factors set forth in
this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
The PBGC has determined that this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the criteria set forth in Executive Order
12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for
this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply.
See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 2619
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, and Pensions.
29 CFR Part 2676
Employee benefit plans and Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, parts 2619 and 2676 of chapter
XXVI, title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, are hereby amended as
follows:
PART 2619--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 2619 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
2. In appendix B, Rate Set 31 is added to Table I, and a new entry
is added to Table II, as set forth below. The introductory text of both
tables is republished for the convenience of the reader and remains
unchanged.
Appendix B to Part 2619--Interest Rates Used To Value Lump Sums and
Annuities
Lump Sum Valuations
In determining the value of interest factors of the form v
0n (as defined in Sec. 2619.49(b)(1)) for
purposes of applying the formulas set forth in Sec. 2619.49 (b)
through (i) and in determining the value of any interest factor used
in valuing benefits under this subpart to be paid as lump sums
(including the return of accumulated employee contributions upon
death), the PBGC shall employ the values of it set out in Table
I hereof as follows:
(1) For benefits for which the participant or beneficiary is
entitled to be in pay status on the valuation date, the immediate
annuity rate shall apply.
(2) For benefits for which the deferral period is y years (y is
an integer and 0 < y n1), interest rate i1
shall apply from the valuation date for a period of y years;
thereafter the immediate annuity rate shall apply.
(3) For benefits for which the deferral period is y years (y is
an integer and n1 < y n1 + n2), interest
rate i2 shall apply from the valuation date for a period of
y-n1 years, interest rate i1 shall apply for the following
n1 years; thereafter the immediate annuity rate shall apply.
(4) For benefits for which the deferral period is y years (y is
an integer and y > n1 + n2), interest rate i3 shall
apply from the valuation date for a period of y - n1 - n2
years, interest rate i2 shall apply for the following n2
years, interest rate i1 shall apply for the following n1
years; thereafter the immediate annuity rate shall apply.
[[Page 16390]]
Table I
[Lump Sum Valuations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For plans with a Immediate Deferred annuities (percent)
valuation date annuity -------------------------------------------------------------
Rate set -------------------------- rate
On or after Before (percent) ii i2 i3 n1 n2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
31......... 05-1-96 06-1-96 5.00 4.25 4.00 4.00 7 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annuity Valuations
In determining the value of interest factors of the form v
0:n (as defined in Sec. 2619.49(b)(1)) for purposes of
applying the formulas set forth in Sec. 2619.49 (b) through (i) and
in determining the value of any interest factor used in valuing
annuity benefits under this subpart, the plan administrator shall
use the values of it prescribed in Table II hereof.
The following table tabulates, for each calendar month of
valuation ending after the effective date of this part, the interest
rates (denoted by i1, i2, . . . , and referred to
generally as it) assumed to be in effect between specified
anniversaries of a valuation date that occurs within that calendar
month; those anniversaries are specified in the columns adjacent to
the rates. The last listed rate is assumed to be in effect after the
last listed anniversary date.
Table II
[Annuity Valuations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The values of it are:
For valuation dates occurring in the -----------------------------------------------------------------------
month-- it for t = it for t = it for t =
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
May 1996................................ .0600 1-20 .475 >20 N/A N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 2676--[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 2676 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1399(c)(1)(D), 1441(b)(1).
4. In appendix B, Rate Set 31 is added to Table I, and a new entry
is added to Table II, as set forth below. The introductory text of both
tables is republished for the convenience of the reader and remains
unchanged.
Appendix B to Part 2676--Interest Rates Used To Value Lump Sums and
Annuities
Lump Sum Valuations
In determining the value of interest factors of the form
v0:n (as defined in Sec. 2676.13(b)(1)) for purposes of
applying the formulas set forth in Sec. 2676.13(b) through (i) and
in determining the value of any interest factor used in valuing
benefits under this subpart to be paid as lump sums, the PBGC shall
use the values of it prescribed in Table I hereof. The interest
rates set forth in Table I shall be used by the PBGC to calculate
benefits payable as lump sum benefits as follows:
(1) For benefits for which the participant or beneficiary is
entitled to be in pay status on the valuation date, the immediate
annuity rate shall apply.
(2) For benefits for which the deferral period is y years (y is
an integer and 0 < y < n1), interest rate i1 shall apply
from the valuation date for a period of y years; thereafter the
immediate annuity rate shall apply.
(3) For benefits for which the deferral period is y years (y is
an integer and n1 < y < n1 + n2), interest rate
i2 shall apply from the valuation date for a period of y -
n1 years, interest rate i1 shall apply for the following
n1 years; thereafter the immediate annuity rate shall apply.
(4) For benefits for which the deferral period is y years (y is
an integer and y > n1 + n2), interest rate i3 shall
apply from the valuation date for a period of y - n1 - n2
years, interest rate i2 shall apply for the following n2
years, interest rate i1 shall apply for the following n1
years; thereafter the immediate annuity rate shall apply.
Table I
[Lump Sum Valuations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For plans with a Immediate Deferred annuities (percent)
valuation date annuity -------------------------------------------------------------
Rate set -------------------------- rate
On or after Before (percent) i1 i2 i3 n1 n2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
31......... 05-1-96 06-1-96 5.00 4.25 4.00 4.00 7 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annuity Valuations
In determining the value of interest factors of the form
v0:n (as defined in Sec. 2676.13(b)(1)) for purposes of
applying the formulas set forth in Sec. 2676.13 (b) through (i) and
in determining the value of any interest factor used in valuing
annuity benefits under this subpart, the plan administrator shall
use the values of it prescribed in the table below.
The following table tabulates, for each calendar month of
valuation ending after the effective date of this part, the interest
rates (denoted by i1, i2, . . . and referred to generally
as it) assumed to be in effect between specified anniversaries
of a valuation date
[[Page 16391]]
that occurs within that calendar month; those anniversaries are
specified in the columns adjacent to the rates. The last listed rate
is assumed to be in effect after the last listed anniversary date.
Table II
[Annuity Valuations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The values of it are:
For valuation dates occurring in the -----------------------------------------------------------------------
month-- it for t = it for t= it for t=
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
May 1996................................ .0600 1-20 .0475 >20 N/A N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 3d day of April 1996.
Martin Slate,
Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-8809 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7708-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8808 Late Premium Payments and Employer Liability Underpayments and Overpayments; Interest Rate for Determining Variable Rate Premium; Amendments to Interest Rates
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16387-16388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8808]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Parts 2610 and 2622
Late Premium Payments and Employer Liability Underpayments and
Overpayments; Interest Rate for Determining Variable Rate Premium;
Amendments to Interest Rates
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document notifies the public of the interest rate
applicable to late premium payments and employer liability
underpayments and overpayments for the calendar quarter beginning April
1, 1996. This interest rate is established quarterly by the Internal
Revenue Service. This document also sets forth the interest rates for
valuing unfunded vested benefits for premium purposes for plan years
beginning in February through April 1996. These interest rates are
established pursuant to section 4006 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended. The effect of these amendments is to
advise plan sponsors and pension practitioners of these new interest
rates.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; telephone
202-326-4024 (202-326-4179 for TTY and TTD). These are not toll-free
numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of title IV of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation collects premiums from ongoing plans to support
the single-employer and multiemployer insurance programs. Under the
single-employer program, the PBGC also collects employer liability from
those persons described in ERISA section 4062(a). Under ERISA section
4007 and 29 CFR Sec. 2610.7, the interest rate to be charged on unpaid
premiums is the rate established under section 6601 of the Internal
Revenue Code (``Code''). Similarly, under 29 CFR 2622.7, the interest
rate to be credited or charged with respect to overpayments or
underpayments of employer liability is the section 6601 rate. These
interest rates are published by the PBGC in appendix A to the premium
regulation and appendix A to the employer liability regulation.
The Internal Revenue Service has announced that for the quarter
beginning April 1, 1996, the interest charged on the underpayment of
taxes will be at a rate of 8 percent. Accordingly, the PBGC is amending
appendix A to 29 CFR part 2610 and appendix A to 29 CFR part 2622 to
set forth this rate for the April 1, 1996, through June 30, 1996,
quarter.
Under ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II), in determining a
single-employer plan's unfunded vested benefits for premium computation
purposes, plans must use an interest rate equal to 80% of the annual
yield on 30-year Treasury securities for the month preceding the
beginning of the plan year for which premiums are being paid. Under
Sec. 2610.23(b)(1) of the premium regulation, this value is determined
by reference to 30-year Treasury constant maturities as reported
[[Page 16388]]
in Federal Reserve Statistical Releases G.13 and H.15. The PBGC
publishes these rates in appendix B to the regulation.
The PBGC publishes these monthly interest rates in appendix B on a
quarterly basis to coincide with the publication of the late payment
interest rate set forth in appendix A. (The PBGC publishes the appendix
A rates every quarter, regardless of whether the rate has changed.)
Unlike the appendix A rate, which is determined prospectively, the
appendix B rate is not known until a short time after the first of the
month for which it applies. Accordingly, the PBGC is hereby amending
appendix B to part 2610 to add the vested benefits valuation rates for
plan years beginning in February through April of 1996.
The appendices to 29 CFR parts 2610 and 2622 do not prescribe the
interest rates under these regulations. Under both regulations, the
appendix A rates are the rates determined under section 6601(a) of the
Code. The interest rates in appendix B to part 2610 are prescribed by
ERISA section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) and Sec. 2610.23(b)(1) of the
regulation. These appendices merely collect and republish the interest
rates in a convenient place. Thus, the interest rates in the appendices
are informational only. Accordingly, the PBGC finds that notice of and
public comment on these amendments would be unnecessary and contrary to
the public interest. For the above reasons, the PBGC also believes that
good cause exists for making these amendments effective immediately.
The PBGC has determined that none of these actions is a
``significant regulatory action'' under the criteria set forth in
Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for
these amendments, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not
apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 2610
Employee benefit plans, Penalties, Pension insurance, Pensions, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
29 CFR Part 2622
Business and industry, Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance,
Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Small
businesses.
In consideration of the foregoing, part 2610 and part 2622 of
chapter XXVI of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, are hereby
amended as follows:
PART 2610--PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS
1. The authority citation for part 2610 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1306, 1307.
2. Appendix A to part 2610 is amended by adding a new entry for the
quarter beginning April 1, 1996, to read as follows. The introductory
text is republished for the convenience of the reader and remains
unchanged.
Appendix A to Part 2610--Late Payment Interest Rates
The following table lists the late payment interest rates under
Sec. 2610.7(a) for the specified time periods:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interest
From-- Through-- rate
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
April 1, 1996....................... June 30, 1996.......... 8.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Appendix B to part 2610 is amended by adding to the table of
interest rates new entries for premium payment years beginning in
February through April of 1996, to read as follows. The introductory
text is republished for the convenience of the reader and remains
unchanged.
Appendix B to Part 2610--Interest Rates for Valuing Vested Benefits
The following table lists the required interest rates to be used in
valuing a plan's vested benefits under Sec. 2610.23(b) and in
calculating a plan's adjusted vested benefits under Sec. 2610.23(c)(1):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required
For premium payment years beginning in-- interest
rate \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
February 1996.............................................. 4.84
March 1996................................................. 4.99
April 1996................................................. 5.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The required interest rate listed above is equal to 80% of the
annual yield for 30-year Treasury constant maturities, as reported in
Federal Reserve Statistical Release G.13 and H.15 for the calendar
month preceding the calendar month in which the premium payment year
begins.
PART 2622--EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR WITHDRAWALS FROM AND TERMINATIONS
OF SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS
4. The authority citation for part 2622 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1362-1364, 1367-68.
5. Appendix A to part 2622 is amended by adding a new entry for the
quarter beginning April 1, 1996, to read as follows. The introductory
text is republished for the convenience of the reader and remains
unchanged.
Appendix A to Part 2622--Late Payment and Overpayment Interest Rates
The following table lists the late payment and overpayment interest
rates under Sec. 2622.7 for the specified time periods:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interest
From Through rate
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
April 1, 1996....................... June 30, 1996.......... 8.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Washington, DC, this 3d day of April 1996.
Martin Slate,
Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-8808 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7708-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8584 Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model L-1011-385 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16379-16382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8584]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-88-AD; Amendment 39-9563; AD 96-07-13]
Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model L-1011-385 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to all Lockheed Model L-1011-385 series airplanes,
that currently requires inspections to detect cracking of certain areas
of the rear spar caps, web, skin, and certain fastener holes; and
repair or modification, if necessary. That AD was prompted by reports
of fatigue cracks in the caps, web, and skin of the wing rear spar
inboard of inner wing station 346. The actions specified by that AD are
intended to prevent rupture of the rear spar, which could result in
extensive damage to the wing and fuel spillage. This amendment adds
various improved inspections and follow-on actions, and requires that
the initial inspections be accomplished at reduced thresholds.
DATES: Effective May 15, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications, as listed
in the regulations, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register
as of May 15, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed
in the regulations was approved previously by the Director of the
Federal Register as of November 24, 1993 (58 FR 54947, October 25,
1993).
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Support Company, Field
Support Department, Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251 Lake Park Drive, Smyrna,
Georgia 30080. This information may be
[[Page 16380]]
examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-
160, College Park, Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer,
Flight Test Branch, ACE-116A, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta
Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
Suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748; telephone (404) 305-
7367; fax (404) 305-7348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 93-17-10,
amendment 39-8681 (58 FR 54947, October 25, 1993), which is applicable
to all Lockheed Model L-1011-385 series airplanes, was published in the
Federal Register on December 18, 1995 (60 FR 65032). The action
proposed to continue to require inspections to detect cracking of
certain areas of the rear spar caps, web, skin, and certain fastener
holes; and repair or modification, if necessary. The action proposed to
add various improved inspections and follow-on actions, and to require
that the initial inspections be accomplished at reduced thresholds.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Four commenters support the proposed rule.
Two commenters request that the proposed rule be issued without
change, but that the FAA issue subsequent rulemaking to require a
reduced repetitive inspection interval. One commenter expresses concern
that analytical data and service experience do not support the
repetitive inspection interval of 2,000 flight cycles recommended in
Revision 4 of Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203. The
commenter states that two inspection opportunities should be provided
to detect cracks prior to the time at which those cracks reach critical
flaw size; the proposed inspection interval will not allow two
inspections to be conducted during the period between the point at
which the crack becomes detectable using the specified inspection
methods and the point at which the crack reaches critical length. The
second commenter, the manufacturer, indicates that analysis of an
incident that occurred subsequent to the issuance of Revision 4 of the
service bulletin revealed a failure mode that had not been evaluated
fully. The manufacturer advises that it intends to revise the service
bulletin to recommend that the repetitive inspection intervals be
reduced and to change the inspection requirements to ensure timely
detection of cracks.
The FAA concurs with the commenters' request. The FAA may consider
additional rulemaking to address the issues discussed by the commenters
once an acceptable inspection interval and other inspections have been
identified.
One commenter requests that the Summary section of the preamble to
the proposed rule be revised to clarify that fatigue cracks were found
in the web and skin, as well as the caps, of the wing rear spar inboard
of inner wing station 346. The FAA concurs, and has made this change to
the pertinent language in the preamble to this final rule.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
There are approximately 236 Model L-1011-385 series airplanes of
the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 118
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 93-17-10 take
approximately 21 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost
impact on U.S. operators of the actions currently required is estimated
to be $148,680, or $1,260 per airplane.
The new actions that are required by this new AD will take
approximately 64 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. [This work hour estimate assumes that
X-ray inspections are done of both upper and lower caps, and that the
ultrasonic inspection indicates cracking in each of five bolt holes
(per wing), thus requiring subsequent bolt hole eddy current
inspections to confirm crack findings. The estimate includes
inspections of both wings.] Based on these figures, the cost impact on
U.S. operators of the new requirements of this AD is estimated to be
$453,120, or $3,840 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it 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 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8681 (58 FR
54947, October 25, 1993), and by adding
[[Page 16381]]
a new airworthiness directive (AD), amendment 39-9563, to read as
follows:
96-07-13 Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company: Amendment 39-9563.
Docket 95-NM-88-AD. Supersedes AD 93-17-10, Amendment 39-8681.
Applicability: All Model L-1011-385-1, L-1011-385-1-14, L-1011-
385-1-15, and L-1011-385-3 series airplanes, certificated in any
category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
Note 2: Paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this AD restate the
requirement for repetitive inspections and follow-on actions
contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 93-17-10. Therefore, for
operators who have previously accomplished at least the initial
inspection in accordance with AD 93-17-10, paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)
of this AD require that the next scheduled inspection be performed
within 2,000 flight cycles after the last inspection performed in
accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 93-17-10.
To prevent rupture of the rear spar, which could result in
extensive damage to the wing and fuel spillage, accomplish the
following:
(a) Perform inspections and various follow-on actions to detect
cracking in the areas specified in and in accordance with Part II of
the Accomplishment Instructions of the Lockheed service documents
listed below. After the effective date of this AD, the inspections
and follow-on actions shall be performed only at the times specified
in and in accordance with Revision 4 of Lockheed L-1011 Service
Bulletin 093-57-203. [The inspections and follow-on actions include:
repetitive X-ray (radiographic) inspections; repetitive eddy current
surface scan inspections; bolt hole eddy current inspections at
various locations; repetitive ultrasonic inspections in conjunction
with eddy current surface scan inspections (for certain airplanes);
and repetitive low frequency eddy current ring probe inspections.]
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991, as amended by Lockheed L-1011 Service
Bulletin Change Notification 093-57-203, R3-CN1, dated June 22,
1992; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
4, dated March 27, 1995.
(1) For airplanes on which the inspections required by AD 93-17-
10, amendment 39-8681, have been initiated prior to the effective
date of this AD: Perform the inspections and follow-on actions at
the times specified in Table I of Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin
Change Notification 093-57-203, R3-CN1, dated June 22, 1992, or
within 6 months after November 24, 1993 (the effective date of AD
93-17-10, amendment 39-8681), whichever occurs later.
Note 3: As allowed by the phrase, ``unless accomplished
previously,'' if the inspections and follow-on actions required by
this paragraph were conducted prior to November 24, 1993, in
accordance with Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203,
Revision 2, dated January 25, 1991, those inspections need not be
repeated.
(2) For airplanes on which the inspections required by AD 93-17-
10, amendment 39-8681, have not been initiated prior to the
effective date of this AD: Perform the inspections and follow-on
actions at the times specified in Table I of Lockheed L-1011 Service
Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 4, dated March 27, 1995, or within 6
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(b) If no cracking is found, perform the repetitive inspections
and follow-on actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions
of the Lockheed service documents listed below thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles. After the effective
date of this AD, the inspections and follow-on actions shall be
performed only in accordance with Revision 4 of Lockheed L-1011
Service Bulletin 093-57-203.
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991, as amended by Lockheed L-1011 Service
Bulletin Change Notification 093-57-203, R3-CN1, dated June 22,
1992; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
4, dated March 27, 1995;
(c) If any finding of cracking is confirmed, prior to further
flight, accomplish paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Repair the cracked area in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate. Thereafter, perform the repetitive
inspections and follow-on actions required by paragraph (b) of this
AD; or
(2) Repair the rear spar upper and lower caps between IWS 228
and 346 in accordance with the Lockheed Model L-1011 Structural
Repair Manual. Thereafter, perform the repetitive inspections and
follow-on actions required by paragraph (b) of this AD; or
(3) Modify the rear spar upper and lower caps between IWS 228
and 346 in accordance with the Lockheed service bulletins listed
below, as applicable. Accomplishment of the modification constitutes
terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-184, Revision
7, dated December 6, 1994, as amended by Change Notification 093-57-
184, R7-CN1, dated August 22, 1995; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-196, Revision
6, dated December 6, 1994, as amended by Change Notification 093-57-
196, R6-CN1, dated August 22, 1995; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
4, dated March 27, 1995.
Note 4: Accomplishment of the modification specified in
paragraph (c)(3) of this AD prior to the effective date of this AD
in accordance with the following Lockheed service bulletins, as
applicable, is considered to be in compliance with this paragraph:
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-184, Revision
6, dated October 28, 1991;
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-184, Revision
7, dated December 6, 1994;
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-196, Revision
5, dated October 28, 1991;
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-196, Revision
6, dated December 6, 1994;
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991, as amended by Change Notification 093-57-
203, R3-CN1, dated June 22, 1992.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO. Operators shall submit
their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance
Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Atlanta ACO.
Note 5: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
(e) 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.
(f) Certain actions shall be done in accordance with Lockheed L-
1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 4, dated March 27, 1995.
The modification, if accomplished, shall be done in accordance with
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-184, Revision 7, dated
December 6, 1994, as amended by Change Notification 093-57-184, R7-
CN1, dated August 22, 1995; or Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-
57-196, Revision 6, dated December 6, 1994, as amended by Change
Notification 093-57-196, R6-CN1, dated August 22, 1995. The
incorporation by reference of these documents was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Certain other actions shall be done in accordance
with Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 3, dated
October 28, 1991; and Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203,
Revision 3, dated October 28, 1991, as amended by Lockheed L-1011
Service Bulletin Change Notification 093-57-203, R3-CN1, dated June
22, 1992. The incorporation by reference of these documents was
approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
[[Page 16382]]
part 5,1 as of November 24, 1993 (58 FR 54947, October 25, 1993).
Copies may be obtained from Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Support
Company, Field Support Department, Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251 Lake
Park Drive, Smyrna, Georgia 30080. Copies may be inspected at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta
Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, Suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia; or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on May 15, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 28, 1996.
Bill R. Boxwell,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8584 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8535 Airworthiness Directives; Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A. (CASA), Model C-212-CB, -CC, -CD, -CE, and -CF Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16382-16384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8535]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 92-NM-75-AD; Amendment 39-9564; AD 96-07-14]
Airworthiness Directives; Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.
(CASA), Model C-212-CB, -CC, -CD, -CE, and -CF Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to all CASA Model C-212-CB, -CC, -CD, -CE, and -CF series
airplanes, that requires supplemental structural inspections, and
repair or replacement, as necessary, to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these airplanes. This amendment is prompted by a
structural reevaluation, which identified certain significant
structural components to inspect for fatigue cracks as these airplanes
approach and exceed the manufacturer's original fatigue design life
goal. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent reduced
structural integrity of these airplanes.
DATES: Effective May 15, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A., Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Dunn, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2799; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all CASA Model C-212-CB, -CC, -CD,
-CE, and -CF series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
May 3, 1995 (60 FR 21772). That action proposed to require supplemental
structural inspections, and repair or replacement, as necessary. That
action also proposed to require that results of these inspections,
positive or negative, be reported to CASA. Additionally, the action
proposed to require replacement of certain horizontal stabilizer-to-
fuselage attach fittings on Model C-212-CB series airplanes.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Three commenters request that Model C-212-DF series airplanes be
removed from the applicability of the proposed AD. The commenters
remark that those airplanes are not included in the effectivity listing
of CASA Supplemental Inspection Document (SID) C-212-PV-01-SID, dated
June 1, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ``Document''). Further,
that airplane model is far from achieving the thresholds specified in
the Document. Additionally, a revision of the Document is in progress
currently; that revision will address the special features of that
model. The FAA concurs with the commenters' request for the reasons
presented, and has revised the final rule accordingly. The FAA may
consider further rulemaking relevant to that model.
These commenters also request that the compliance time for
replacement of the horizontal stabilizer-to-fuselage attach fittings,
as specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD, be revised from
``16,500 total hours time-in-service'' to ``16,500 total landings,'' in
order to be consistent with Spanish airworthiness directive 2-88,
Revision 1, dated May 17, 1993. The FAA concurs with the commenters'
request, and finds that the compliance time in terms of landings is
more appropriate. The FAA has revised paragraph (a) of the final rule
accordingly.
One commenter requests that the compliance time for revising the
maintenance inspection program, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of the
proposed AD, be revised from ``20,000 total landings or 20,000 total
hours time-in-service, whichever occurs first'' to ``20,000 total
landings'' only. The commenter considers this request necessary in
order to ensure that the threshold specified in proposed AD is
consistent with that specified in the Document. The FAA does not concur
with the commenter's request. The FAA's intent is that the compliance
times specified in this AD be consistent with those of Spanish
airworthiness directive 2-88, Revision 1, dated May 17, 1993. The FAA
finds that the compliance time, as presented in the proposal and in the
Spanish airworthiness directive, is more appropriate for initiating
timely detection and correction of problems associated with fatigue in
the affected components. Therefore, the compliance times specified in
paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule have not been changed.
Two commenters, the manufacturer and the foreign airworthiness
authority, request that the FAA add a note to the proposed AD to
indicate that the thresholds and intervals specified in AD 89-02-08 R1,
amendment 39-6280 (54 FR 1341, January 13, 1989), for accomplishment of
certain requirements associated with the flap control system are more
restrictive than the thresholds and intervals specified in the Document
and in this proposed AD for accomplishment of the same requirements.
The commenters request that a note be included in the AD in order to
avoid confusion among the operators of the affected airplanes. The FAA
concurs that clarification is necessary. The FAA acknowledges that
certain thresholds and intervals specified in the Document for
inspection of the flap control system may overlap with those specified
in AD 89-02-08 R1. The FAA has revised paragraph (b) of this final rule
to add a note specifying that where such differences exist, the
thresholds and intervals specified in AD 89-02-08 R1 prevail.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
[[Page 16383]]
The FAA estimates that 33 airplanes of U.S. registry and 16 U.S.
operators will be affected by this AD.
The FAA estimates that 2 Model C-212-CB series airplanes of U.S.
registry will be required to replace certain horizontal stabilizer-to-
fuselage attach fittings. The required replacement will take
approximately 250 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately
$18,941 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the
required replacement on U.S. operators of Model C-212-CB series
airplanes is estimated to be $67,882, or $33,941 per airplane.
Incorporation of the SID into an operator's maintenance program is
estimated to necessitate 60 work hours at an average labor rate of $60
per work hour. Sixteen U.S. operators would be required to incorporate
the SID into their maintenance programs. Based on these figures, the
cost to these 16 U.S. operators is estimated to be $57,600, or $3,600
per operator.
The recurring inspections cost is estimated to be 310 work hours
per airplane at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the recurring cost for these requirements is estimated
to be $613,800 for the affected U.S. fleet, or $18,600 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
The FAA recognizes that the obligation to maintain aircraft in an
airworthy condition is vital, but sometimes expensive. Because AD's
require specific actions to address specific unsafe conditions, they
appear to impose costs that would not otherwise be borne by operators.
However, because of the general obligation of operators to maintain
aircraft in an airworthy condition, this appearance is deceptive.
Attributing those costs solely to the issuance of this AD is
unrealistic because, in the interest of maintaining safe aircraft,
prudent operators would accomplish the required actions even if they
were not required to do so by the AD.
A full cost-benefit analysis has not been accomplished for this AD.
As a matter of law, in order to be airworthy, an aircraft must conform
to its type design and be in a condition for safe operation. The type
design is approved only after the FAA makes a determination that it
complies with all applicable airworthiness requirements. In adopting
and maintaining those requirements, the FAA has already made the
determination that they establish a level of safety that is cost-
beneficial. When the FAA, as in this AD, makes a finding of an unsafe
condition, this means that the original cost-beneficial level of safety
is no longer being achieved and that the proposed actions are necessary
to restore that level of safety. Because this level of safety has
already been determined to be cost-beneficial, a full cost-benefit
analysis for this AD would be redundant and unnecessary.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it 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), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-07-14 Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A. (CASA): Amendment 39-
9564. Docket 92-NM-75-AD.
Applicability: All Model C-212-CB, -CC, -CD, -CE, and -CF series
airplanes, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane,
accomplish the following:
(a) For Model C-212-CB series airplanes: Prior to the
accumulation of 16,500 total landings, or within 6 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the
horizontal stabilizer-to-fuselage attach fittings, part numbers 212-
31101.05 and 212-31102.05, with part numbers 212-31122.03 and 212-
31123.05, respectively, in accordance with the CASA C-212 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual, Chapter 5, Section 5-20, task number 55.15.
Note 2: Replacement of the attach fittings on Model C-212-CB
series airplanes may be accomplished by replacing part numbers 212-
31101.05 and 212-31102.05 with part numbers 212-31123.30 and 212-
31122.29, respectively.
(b) For all airplanes: Incorporate a revision into the FAA-
approved maintenance inspection program that provides for inspection
of the Principal Structural Elements (PSE) defined in CASA
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID) C-212-PV-01-SID, dated June
1, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ``Document''), at the later
of the times specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD.
Note 3: Certain thresholds and intervals for inspections of the
wing flap control system required by AD 89-02-08 R1, amendment 39-
6280, are more restrictive than those specified in the Document.
Where differences exist, the thresholds and intervals specified in
AD 89-02-08 R1 prevail.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total landings or 20,000
total hours time-in-service, whichever occurs first. Or
(2) Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD.
(c) Any cracked structure detected during the inspections
required by paragraph (b) of this AD must be repaired or replaced,
prior to further flight, in accordance with the
[[Page 16384]]
instructions in the Document, or in accordance with other data
meeting the certification basis of the airplane that is approved by
the FAA or by the Direccion General de Aviacion Civil (DGAC).
(d) Within 10 days after accomplishing each inspection required
by paragraph (b) of this AD, report the results (positive or
negative) of each inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD to
CASA in accordance with the Document. 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.
(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, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
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,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(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 maintenance program revision shall be done in accordance
with CASA Supplemental Inspection Document (SID) C-212-PV-01-SID,
dated June 1, 1987.
Note: The date of Volumes 2 and 3 of the SID is indicated only
on the title page of the volume.
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 Construcciones Aeronauticas,
S.A., Getafe, Madrid, Spain. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on May 15, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 28, 1996.
Bill R. Boxwell,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8535 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8295 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9, DC-9-80, and MD-90-30 Series Airplanes, Model MD-88 Airplanes, and C-9 (Military) Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16377-16379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8295]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-131-AD; Amendment 39-9565; AD 96-07-15]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9, DC-9-80,
and MD-90-30 Series Airplanes, Model MD-88 Airplanes, and C-9
(Military) Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 series
airplanes and Model MD-88 airplanes, that currently requires an
inspection to detect chafing of or damage to the wire bundle in the
overhead switch panel of the cockpit, application of spiral wrap to the
wire bundle, and corrective actions, if necessary. That AD was prompted
by reports of chafed and shorted wires that resulted in smoke emanating
from the overhead switch panel of the cockpit. This amendment expands
the applicability of the rule to include certain Model DC-9 and MD-90-
30 series airplanes, and C-9 (military) series airplanes. This
amendment also adds a requirement to reroute the wire bundle to
preclude chafing and damage. The actions specified by this AD are
intended to prevent the potential for fire and uncontrolled smoke
throughout the cockpit as a result of chafing and shorting in the
electrical wire bundles.
DATES: Effective May 15, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications, as listed
in the regulations, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register
as of May 15, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service
Bulletin DC9-24A157, dated April 11, 1995, as listed in the
regulations, was approved previously by the Director of the Federal
Register as of May 19, 1995 (60 FR 21977, May 4, 1995).
ADDRESSES: 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 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: J. Kirk Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (310) 627-5345; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 95-09-10,
amendment 39-9213 (60 FR 21977, May 4, 1995), which currently is
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 series airplanes
and Model MD-88 airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on
September 15, 1995 (60 FR 47901). The action proposed to supersede AD
95-09-10 to continue to require a one-time visual inspection to detect
chafing of or damage to the wire bundle in the overhead switch panel of
the cockpit, application of spiral wrap to the wire bundle, repair of
chafed wire insulation, splicing of damaged wires, and rerouting the
wire bundle. The action also proposed to expand the applicability of
the rule to include certain Model DC-9 and MD-90-30 series airplanes,
and C-9 (military) series airplanes. This amendment also adds a
requirement to reroute the wire bundle to preclude chafing and damage.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
One commenter supports the proposed rule.
Two commenters request that Model DC-9 series airplanes be excluded
from the applicability of the proposal. One of these commenters states
that the FAA has not proven that the potential for chafing of wire
bundles exists for Model DC-9 series airplanes. The other commenter
states that it has inspected 35 in-service airplanes in its fleet and
has found only one chafed wire bundle, and has never, in 25 years of
service, found any damaged wire bundles.
The FAA does not concur. Although there have been no reported cases
of damage to the wire bundle on any in-service Model DC-9 series
airplane, the FAA has received reports of chafing found on the wire
bundle on in-service Model DC-9 series airplanes. Therefore, the
potential for damage still exists when the wire bundle is improperly
routed in the overhead switch panel of the cockpit such that chafing
occurs. The FAA has determined that rerouting the wire bundle will
prevent the potential for chafing and thereby prevent the potential for
a consequent fire and uncontrolled smoke throughout the cockpit.
Two commenters request a revision to paragraph (b) of the proposal
to delete the requirement to apply spiral wrap to the wire bundle
following findings of chafing or damage to the wire bundle on Model DC-
9, MD-90-30, and C-9 (military) series airplanes. The commenters state
that these airplanes should not be required to apply spiral wrap, since
the proposal also requires rerouting of the wire bundles following
application of spiral wrap.
The FAA concurs. Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has reviewed
and approved McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletins DC9-24-157 and MD90-
24-001, both dated November 9, 1995, which describe procedures for
rerouting the electrical wiring in the overhead switch panel to clear
the cabin temperature indicator housing. As explained in the preamble
to AD 95-09-10, the FAA considers the application of spiral wrap to be
only a temporary measure to protect against chafing of the wire bundle.
The FAA's intent was to require, in AD 95-09-10, application of spiral
wrap only for Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model MD-88 airplanes,
since the procedures to reroute the wire bundles for these airplanes
had not yet been developed at the time AD 95-09-10 was issued. Since
procedures for rerouting the wire bundles have now been developed for
all airplanes, the FAA finds that operators must reroute the wire
bundles immediately following findings of chafed or damaged wire
bundles on Model DC-9, MD-90-30, and C-9 (military) series airplanes.
The FAA has determined that applying the spiral
[[Page 16378]]
wrapping for these airplanes would not necessarily enhance safety, and
would cause operators to incur an unnecessary expense. Consequently,
paragraph (b) of the final rule has been revised to remove the
requirement to spiral wrap the wire bundle prior to rerouting the wire
bundle. Additionally, paragraph (b) of the final rule has been revised
to reference McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletins DC9-24-157 and MD90-
24-001 as additional sources of service information to accomplish
rerouting of the wire bundle.
Additionally, the FAA has revised paragraph (c) of the final rule
to include an applicability statement that limits the requirement of
that paragraph (rerouting the wire bundles within 6 months after the
effective date of the AD) to only Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and
Model MD-88 airplanes . [The requirement to reroute the wire bundle for
all other airplanes is required immediately following the inspection
required by paragraph (b) of the final rule.]
Two commenters request that previously approved alternative methods
of compliance (AMOC) with AD 95-09-10 continue to be acceptable for the
requirements of the proposal. The commenters state that such a
provision in the proposal would preclude operators from having to
obtain approval of additional AMOC's unnecessarily. The FAA concurs.
NOTE 3 from the proposal has been changed from a note to paragraph
(d)(2) of the final rule to emphasize that operators need not apply for
approval of an additional AMOC if the FAA had previously approved an
AMOC to AD 95-09-10.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
There are approximately 2,012 Model DC-9, DC-9-80, and MD-90-30
series airplanes, Model MD-88 airplanes, and C-9 (military) series
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA
estimates that 816 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this
AD.
The requirement to inspect and spiral wrap the wire bundle, which
was previously required by AD 95-09-10, continues to be applicable to
614 Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model MD-88 airplanes of U.S.
registry. This action takes approximately 3 work hours per airplane to
accomplish, at an average labor rate is of $60 per work hour. Required
parts cost approximately $5 per airplane. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the current requirements of that AD on U.S. operators of
the affected airplanes is estimated to be $113,950, or $185 per
airplane. However, in consideration of the compliance time and
effective date of AD 95-09-10, the FAA assumes that U.S. operators of
airplanes that are subject to the requirements of that AD have already
initiated the required actions. Therefore, the requirement to inspect
and spiral wrap the wire bundle likely adds no new costs associated
with those airplanes.
The requirements of this new AD action to inspect and spiral wrap
the wire bundle are also applicable to approximately 202 Model DC-9,
MD-9-30, and C-9 (military) series airplanes of U.S. registry. Based on
the figures discussed above, the new costs imposed by this AD on U.S.
operators of these airplanes are estimated to be $37,370, or $185 per
airplane.
The requirement to reroute the wire bundle that is required by this
new AD is applicable to all 816 airplanes of U.S. registry.
Accomplishing this rerouting will take approximately 0.5 work hour per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts
will cost approximately $5 per airplane. Based on these figures, the
cost impact on U.S. operators of the new requirements of this AD is
estimated to be $28,560, or $35 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above, associated with the new
requirements of this AD, are based on assumptions that no operator has
yet accomplished any of those requirements, and that no operator would
accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it 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), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9213 (60 FR
21977, May 4, 1995), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD),
amendment 39-9565, to read as follows:
96-07-15 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9565. Docket 95-NM-131-AD.
Supersedes AD 95-09-10, Amendment 39-9213.
Applicability: Model DC-9 and DC-9-80 series airplanes, Model
MD-88 airplanes, and C-9 (military) series airplanes, as listed in
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A157, dated
April 11, 1995; and Model MD-90-30 series airplanes, as listed in
McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD90-24A001, dated April
11, 1995; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent the potential for fire and uncontrolled smoke
throughout the cockpit due to damaged electrical wiring, accomplish
the following:
(a) For Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model MD-88
airplanes: Within 90 days
[[Page 16379]]
after May 19, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-09-10, amendment 39-
9213), perform a visual inspection to detect chafing of or damage to
the wire bundle in the overhead switch panel of the cockpit, in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A157,
dated April 11, 1995, or Revision 1, dated November 11, 1995.
(1) If no chafing or damage is detected, prior to further
flight, apply spiral wrap to the wire bundle in accordance with the
alert service bulletin.
(2) If the wire insulation is chafed, prior to further flight,
repair it and then apply spiral wrap to the wire bundle in
accordance with the alert service bulletin.
(3) If the wire conductor is damaged, prior to further flight,
splice the wires and then apply spiral wrap to the wire bundle, in
accordance with the alert service bulletin.
(b) For Model DC-9, C-9 (military), and MD-90-30 series
airplanes: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
perform a visual inspection to detect chafing of or damage to the
wire bundle in the overhead switch panel of the cockpit, in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A157,
dated April 11, 1995, or Revision 1 dated November 9, 1995 [for
Model DC-9 and C-9 (military) series airplanes]; or McDonnell
Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD90-24A001, dated April 11, 1995
(for Model MD-90-30 series airplanes); as applicable.
(1) If no chafing or damage is detected, prior to further
flight, reroute the wire bundle in the overhead switch panel of the
cockpit in accordance with either McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
DC9-24-157, dated November 9, 1995 [for Model DC-9 series airplanes
and C-9 (military) series airplanes], or McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin MD90-24-001, dated November 9, 1995 [for Model MD-90-30
series airplanes], as applicable; or in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(2) If the wire insulation is chafed, prior to further flight,
repair it in accordance with the applicable alert service bulletin;
then reroute the wire bundle in the overhead switch panel of the
cockpit in accordance with either McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
DC9-24-157, dated November 9, 1995 [for Model DC-9 series airplanes
and C-9 (military) series airplanes], or McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin MD90-24-001, dated November 9, 1995 [for Model MD-90-30
series airplanes], as applicable; or in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(3) If the wire conductor is damaged, prior to further flight,
splice the wires in accordance with the applicable alert service
bulletin; then reroute the wire bundle in the overhead switch panel
of the cockpit in accordance with either McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC9-24-157, dated November 9, 1995 [for Model DC-9 series
airplanes and C-9 (military) series airplanes], or McDonnell Douglas
Service Bulletin MD90-24-001, dated November 9, 1995 [for Model MD-
90-30 series airplanes], as applicable; or in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(c) For Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model MD-88
airplanes: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
reroute the wire bundle in the overhead switch panel of the cockpit
in accordance with either McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-24-
157, dated November 9, 1995 [for Model DC-9 series airplanes and C-9
(military) series airplanes], or McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
MD90-24-001, dated November 9, 1995 [for Model MD-90-30 series
airplanes], as applicable; or in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(d)(1) 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. 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 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance
with AD 95-09-10, amendment 39-9213, are approved as alternative
methods of compliance with this AD.
(e) 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.
(f) The actions shall be done in accordance with the following
McDonnell Douglas documents:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service bulletin No. Revision level Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alert Service Bulletin MD90- (Original)........ April 11, 1995.
24A001.
Service Bulletin MD90-24-001..... (Original)........ November 9, 1995.
Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A157 (Original)........ April 11, 1995.
Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A157 Revision 1........ November 9, 1995.
Service Bulletin DC9-24-157...... (Original)........ November 9, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The incorporation by reference of McDonnell Douglas Alert
Service Bulletin DC9-24A157, dated April 11, 1995, was approved
previously by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 as of May 19, 1995 (60 FR
21977, May 4, 1995). The incorporation by reference of the remainder
of the service documents listed above is 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 McDonnell 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, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on May 15, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 29, 1996.
Bill R. Boxwell,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8295 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.