issue-1996-09-11•Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-11
Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-11
issue-1996-09-11Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-11Regulation
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. X96-10911 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47813-47815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X96-10911]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-224-AD; Amendment 39-9752; AD 96-19-04]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000,
and 4000 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is applicable to certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and
4000 series airplanes. This action requires a one-time inspection to
detect cracks of the dimpled lap joints in the fuselage skin, and
repair of cracked lap joints. This amendment is prompted by a report
indicating that cracks were found at various locations in the outer
skin of the dimpled longitudinal lap joints of the fuselage skin. The
actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent such cracking,
which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage and/
or rapid decompression of the airplane.
DATES: Effective September 26, 1996. The incorporation by reference of
Fokker Service Bulletin F28/53-144, dated July 15, 1996, as listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of September 26, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of Fokker Service Bulletin F28/53-
121, Revision 1, dated December 13, 1991, as listed in the regulations,
was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of
October 8, 1992 (57 FR 40311, September 3, 1992).
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before November 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-224-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98055-4056.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from
Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street, Alexandria, VA
22314. This
[[Page 47814]]
information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-2141;
fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD), which is
the airworthiness authority for the Netherlands, recently notified the
FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Fokker Model F28 Mark
1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 series airplanes. The RLD advises that it
recently received a report indicating that, during a walk-around
inspection of a Model F28 Mark 4000 series airplane, two cracks were
found in the outer skin of the left- and right-hand dimpled
longitudinal lap joints of the fuselage skin between stations 15263 and
15733, stringers 16 and 17, and stringers 58 and 59. These cracks were
approximately 20 inches long. The exact cause of such cracking is
unknown at this time.
Currently, AD 93-13-04, amendment 39-8617 (58 FR 38513, July 19,
1993) requires inspection of these airplanes in the area where the
recent cracking was found. The inspection is required to be
accomplished in accordance with Item 53-30-08 of the Fokker Structural
Integrity Program (SIP) Document 28438. AD 93-13-04 requires that the
inspection be accomplished by the time that the airplane has
accumulated 32,000 total flight cycles, and that it be repeated
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,700 flight cycles. However, the
subject cracking was found on the affected airplane some 3,520 flight
cycles before the airplane had reached inspection threshold of 32,000
flight cycles.
In addition, AD 92-19-02, amendment 39-8359 (57 FR 40311, September
3, 1992), requires modification of the subject area in accordance with
Fokker Service Bulletin F28/53-121, prior to the accumulation of 32,000
flight cycles. However, the affected airplane had accumulated only
28,480 total flight cycles; therefore, it had not been modified in
accordance with that AD at the time cracking was detected.
Cracking in the outer skin of the left- and right-hand dimpled
longitudinal lap joints of the fuselage skin between stations 15263 and
15733, stringers 16 and 17, and stringers 58 and 59, if not corrected,
could result in reduced structural integrity of this area of the
fuselage and/or rapid decompression of the airplane.
The configuration of the subject area on Fokker Model Mark 1000,
2000, and 3000 series airplanes is identical to that on the affected
Model Mark 4000 series airplane. Therefore, all of these models may be
subject to this same unsafe condition.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
Fokker has issued Service Bulletin F28/53-144, dated July 15, 1996.
This service bulletin describes procedures for a one-time low frequency
eddy current inspection to detect cracks of the dimpled lap joints in
the fuselage skin between stringers 16 and 17, stringers 58 and 59, and
frames 13345 and 14285. It also describes procedures for submitting a
report of the inspection results to Fokker.
Fokker also has issued Service Bulletin F28/53-121, Revision 1,
dated December 13, 1991, which describes procedures for repair of
cracked dimpled lap joints. The repair consists of cutting out the lap
joint and installing a repair plate and shim on the outside of the
fuselage. The repair will minimize the possibility of cracks developing
in the subject area of the fuselage.
The RLD classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued
Dutch airworthiness directive BLA 1996-081 (A), dated July 24, 1996, in
order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the
Netherlands.
FAA's Conclusions
This airplane model is manufactured in the Netherlands and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the RLD has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
RLD, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action
is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Explanation of Requirements of Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent cracking in
the subject area of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the fuselage and/or rapid decompression of the
airplane. This AD requires a one-time low frequency eddy current
inspection to detect cracks of the dimpled lap joints in the fuselage
skin between stringers 16 and 17, stringers 58 and 59, and frames 13345
and 14285; and repair, if necessary. After accomplishing the
inspection, the AD also requires operators to submit a report of the
inspection results to Fokker. The actions are required to be
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins described
previously.
Interim Action
This is considered to be interim action. The inspection reports
that are required by this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain
better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of cracking; and
eventually to determine if additional corrective action is necessary to
address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified,
the FAA may consider further rulemaking.
Determination of Rule's Effective Date
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments
[[Page 47815]]
submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for
comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A
report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the
substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-224-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further
that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is
determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final
regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.
A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-19-04 Fokker: Amendment 39-9752. Docket 96-NM-224-AD.
Applicability: Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 series
airplanes, serial numbers 11017 through 11241 inclusive; on which
Fokker Service Bulletin F28/53-121, Revision 1, dated December 13,
1991, has not been accomplished; 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 (c) 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 cracking of the fuselage skin, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the fuselage and/or rapid
decompression of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, perform
a one-time low frequency eddy current inspection to detect cracks of
the dimpled lap joints in the fuselage skin between stringers 16 and
17, stringers 58 and 59, and frames 13345 and 14285, in accordance
with Fokker Service Bulletin F28/53-144, dated July 15, 1996.
(1) If no crack is detected, no further action is required by
this paragraph.
(2) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair
the affected lap joint in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin
F28/53-121, Revision 1, dated December 13, 1991. Accomplishment of
the repair is considered acceptable for compliance with AD 92-19-02,
amendment 39-8359 (57 FR 40311, September 3, 1992), and constitutes
terminating action for the inspection identified as item 53-30-08 of
the Fokker structural integrity program, which is required by AD 93-
13-04, amendment 39-8617 (58 FR 38513, July 17, 1993).
(b) Within 10 days after accomplishing the inspection required
by paragraph (a) of this AD, submit a report of the inspection
results (both positive and negative findings) to Fokker Services,
ATTN: Manager Service Engineering Jet Aircraft, P.O. Box 75047, 1117
ZN, Schiphol, The Netherlands. 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.
(c) 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 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The inspection shall be done in accordance with Fokker
Service Bulletin F28/53-144, dated July 15, 1996. The replacement
shall be done in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin F28/53-121,
Revision 1, dated December 13, 1991. The incorporation by reference
of Fokker Service Bulletin F28/53-144, dated July 15, 1996, is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The incorporation by reference of
Fokker Service Bulletin F28/53-121, Revision 1, dated July 15, 1996,
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 October 8,
1992 (57 FR 40311, September 3, 1992. Copies may be obtained from
Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street, Alexandria,
Virginia 22314. 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.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on September 26, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 3, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96- 22917 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23247 Modification of the Dallas-Fort Worth Class B Airspace Area; TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47815-47820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23247]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 94-AWA-2]
RIN 2120-AA66
Modification of the Dallas-Fort Worth Class B Airspace Area; TX
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action modifies the Dallas-Forth Worth (DFW) Class B
airspace area. Specifically, this rule raises the upper limit of the
DFW Class
[[Page 47816]]
B airspace area from 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to 11,000 feet
MSL, except in the reconfigured northern and southern sections, and
redefines several existing subareas. The FAA is taking this action to
improve the flow of aviation traffic and enhance safety in the DFW
Class B airspace area while accommodating the concerns of airspace
users.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bil Nelson, Airspace and Rules Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic
Airspace Management, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 17, 1991, the FAA published the Airspace
Reclassification Final rule (56 FR 65655). This rule discontinued the
use of the term ``Terminal Control Area'' and replaced it with the
designation ``Class B airspace area.'' This change in terminology is
reflected in this final rule.
The Class B airspace area program was developed to reduce the
potential for midair collision in the congested airspace surrounding
airports with high density air traffic by providing an area wherein all
aircraft are subject to certain operating rules and equipment
requirements.
The density of traffic and the type of operations being conducted
in the airspace surrounding major terminals increase the probability of
midair collisions. In 1970, an extensive study found that the majority
of midair collisions occurred between a general aviation (GA) aircraft
and an air carrier or military aircraft, or another GA aircraft. The
basic causal factor common to these conflicts was the mix of aircraft
operating under visual flight rules (VFR) and aircraft operating under
instrument flight rules (IFR). Class B airspace areas provide a method
to accommodate the increasing number of IFR and VFR operations. The
regulatory requirements of Class B airspace areas afford the greatest
protection for the greatest number of people by giving air traffic
control (ATC) increased capability to provide aircraft separation
service; thereby minimizing the mix of controlled and uncontrolled
aircraft. On May 21, 1970, the FAA published the Designation of Federal
Airways, Controlled Airspace, and Reporting Points final rule (35 FR
7782). This rule provided for the establishment of Class B airspace
areas. To date, the FAA has established a total of 29 Class B airspace
areas.
The standard configuration of a Class B airspace area contains
three concentric circles centered on the primary airport extending to
10, 20, and 30 nautical miles (NM), respectively. The standard vertical
limits of the Class B airspace area normally should not exceed 10,000
feet MSL, with the floor established at the surface in the inner area
and at levels appropriate to the containment of operations in the outer
areas. Variations of these criteria may be utilized contingent on the
terrain, adjacent regulatory airspace, and factors unique to the
terminal area.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class B airspace areas are published in Paragraph
3000 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
section 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in this document will be
subsequently published in the Order.
Related Rulemaking Actions
On June 21, 1988, the FAA published the Transponder with Automatic
Altitude Reporting Capability Requirement final rule (53 FR 23356).
This rule requires all aircraft to have an altitude encoding
transponder when operating within 30 nautical miles of any designated
Class B primary airport from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL. This
rule excluded those aircraft that were not originally certificated with
an engine driven electrical system, balloons, and gliders.
On October 14, 1988, the FAA published the Class B Airspace
Classification and Class B Airspace Pilot and Navigation Equipment
Requirements Final Rule (53 FR 40318). This rule, in part, removed the
different classifications of Class B airspace areas, and requires the
pilot-in-command of a civil aircraft operating within a Class B
airspace area to hold at least a private pilot certificate, except for
a student pilot who has received certain documented training.
Public Input
In June, 1992, an ad hoc committee representing a cross section of
the aviation community was formed to analyze the DFW Class B airspace
area and to develop recommendations for modifying the existing design.
The ad hoc committee met regularly at various locations throughout the
DFW area for approximately one year, and submitted written comments on
modifying the DFW Class B airspace area.
As announced in the Federal Register on October 20, 1993, (58 FR
54073) and on January 31, 1994, (59 FR 4310), pre-NPRM airspace
meetings were held on December 8, 1993, in Mesquite, TX, December 13,
1993, in North Richland Hills, TX, April 5, 1994, in North Richland
Hills, TX, and April 7, 1994, in Mesquite, TX. These meetings provided
local airspace users with an opportunity to present input on the design
of the proposed modifications of the DFW Class B airspace area.
On May 10, 1996, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) (61 FR 21910) that proposed modifications to the DFW Class B
airspace area. In response to this notice the FAA received four written
comments. Recommendations and suggestions from the ad hoc committee,
and other comments received in response to the NPRM were considered
before making any determination on this final rule. These comments are
analyzed below.
Analysis of Comments
One commenter, representing the Texas Soaring Association, believes
that the description in the NPRM of Area F did not reflect the FAA's
proposal to amend the Class B airspace south of V16/94 to Class E
airspace.
The FAA agrees that the description in the NPRM erroneously
described Area F. The correct description of Area F will be reflected
in this final rule and on the attached graphic.
American Airlines. Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the
Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association support the modification of the
DFW Class B airspace area.
The Rule
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the DFW Class B airspace
area. The modifications are depicted on the attached chart.
Specifically, this rule raises the upper limit of the DFW Class B
airspace area from 10,000 feet MSL to 11,000 feet MSL, except in the
reconfigured northern and southern sections, and redefines several
existing subareas. Raising the ceiling to 11,000 feet MSL accommodates
arriving traffic using standard instrument arrival routes and departing
traffic utilizing standard instrument departure routes into and out of
the DFW Metroplex area.
In addition, the FAA amends the airspace south of V16/94 from Class
B to Class E airspace. This modification allows GA and other users to
traverse along V-16/94 east or westbound while remaining outside the
DFW Class B airspace area. This rule realigns the boundaries of the DFW
Class B airspace
[[Page 47817]]
area to follow Interstate 30 (I-30) and State Highway 303 (SH-303)
south of DFW airport that lie north and south of Grand Prairie
Municipal Airport, and the Naval Air Station (NAS) Dallas airports.
This realignment will assist GA aircraft pilots in identifying the
boundaries of the DFW Class B airspace in this area. Additionally, this
action raises the floor of the DFW Class B airspace area to 2,000 feet
MSL in the vicinity of NAS Dallas, south of Lyndon Baines Johnson
Freeway to Forest Lane, and west of Addison Airport to Marsh Lane, and
3,000 feet MSL north of Redbird Airport. Modifying the floors in these
areas provides more operational airspace into and out of the Redbird,
Grand Prairie Municipal, and NAS Dallas airports.
Further, the FAA is lowering the floor of the DFW Class B airspace
area from 5,000 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL between 20 and 23 NM west,
and raising the floor of the Class B airspace area from 5,000 feet MSL
to 6,000 feet MSL between 26 and 30 NM west of DFW. Modifying this
Class B airspace will enhance safety and improve the flow of aviation
traffic within the DFW Class B area.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 specifies that each Federal
agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this Final Rule: (1) will
generate benefits that justify its minimal costs and is not ``a
significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2)
is not ``significant'' as defined in the Department of Transportation
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (4) will not
constitute a barrier to international trade; and (5) will not impose a
significant intergovernmental or private sector mandate. These
analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.
Costs-Benefit Analysis
The FAA has determined that this rule will generate additional
benefits in the form of enhanced aviation safety and operational
efficiency. The modification of the DFW Class B airspace area will
enhance operational efficiency through the promotion of additional
operational procedures and aviation safety in the form of the reduced
risk of midair collisions in the modified Class B airspace area. This
rule is expected to impose little or no costs on the FAA for
administrative functions and aircraft operators for additional avionics
equipment and circumnavigation. Cost and benefits are discussed below.
Costs
Cost Impact on Aircraft Operators
The modification of the DFW Class B airspace area will not require
operators to purchase additional aircraft avionics equipment. Aircraft
operators that currently use the airspace area already have Mode C
transponders and two-way radio communications equipment; therefore,
there will be no additional cost incurred for aircraft avionics
equipment. Additionally, the density of air traffic in the DFW airspace
area makes it highly unlikely that VFR traffic will transit this
airspace without two-way radio equipment.
The final rule also will result in a small increase in cost for
pilots who wish to remain clear of the expanded DFW Class B airspace
area. As the result of this rule, the potentially impacted pilots are
expected to make a small deviation from their current flight paths to
avoid the expanded Class B airspace area. This assessment is based on
the belief that the impacted pilots will only have to climb an
additional 1,000 feet MSL. This deviation will require an additional 5
to 10 minutes of flight time. This modification does not change the 30
mile circumference of the DFW Class B airspace area.
Cost Impact on the FAA
The final rule will not impose any additional administrative costs
on the FAA for either personnel or equipment. Projected increases in
traffic volume will be absorbed by current personnel and equipment
resources through more efficient operational procedures (for example,
sequencing and separation of aircraft services). Revising aeronautical
charts to reflect the change in the Class B airspace area will not add
to the cost of the routine and periodic updating of the charts.
Benefits
Enhanced Aviation Safety
The FAA has determined the modification of the DFW Class B airspace
area is in the best interest of flight safety and will result in a
greater degree of protection for the greatest number of people during
flight in the terminal area. A reduction in probability of midair
collisions will stem from increased control in those areas where Class
B airspace will be modified. Based on the FAA's Terminal Area Forecast,
total aircraft operations at the DFW International Airport were about
870,000 in 1995 up from 550,000 in 1985 and are projected to increase
to about 1,000,000 by the year 2000. Also, passenger enplanements were
estimated to be 27 million in 1995 up from 18 million in 1985 and are
projected to increase to about 35 million by the year 2000. In lieu of
the projected increase for total operations and passenger enplanements,
the FAA has determined this final rule will enhance safety by lowering
the potential risk of midair collisions.
Enhanced Operational Efficiency
The FAA has determined the final rule will enhance aircraft
operational efficiency. The final rule will raise the airspace ceiling
to meet the increasing air traffic requirements flowing in and out of
DFW via standard instrument arrival and departure routes, or
alternative Air Traffic Control (ATC) instructions. This assessment of
the enhancement in operational efficiency is based on the FAA's
assumption that improvements in traffic flow will occur because air
traffic controllers will be better able to handle the increasing number
of operations at the DFW International Airport. Further, the FAA
contends that this enhancement will stem from an increase in airspace
area capacity. This modification will enable ATC to have the capability
of providing additional spacing and sequencing of aircraft. The final
rule's configuration increases the airspace area for high performance
aircraft, while allowing non-participating aircraft to access certain
airways above 11,000 feet MSL. Additionally, this modification of Class
B airspace identifies additional airspace for large turbojet aircraft
operations in the DFW airspace area.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The final rule will not constitute a barrier to international
trade, including the export of U.S. goods and services to foreign
countries and the import of foreign goods and services to the United
States. This modification will not impose any additional costs on
aircraft operators or aircraft manufacturers in the United States or
foreign countries. The modification of the Class B airspace area will
only affect U.S. terminal airspace operating procedures at and in
[[Page 47818]]
the vicinity of DFW. The modification will not have international trade
ramifications because it is a domestic airspace matter that will not
impose additional costs or requirements on affected entities.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a final rule will have ``a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' FAA Order 2100.14A outlines the FAA's procedures and
criteria for implementing the RFA.
The small entities that potentially maybe affected by this final
rule are unscheduled air taxi operators for hire that own nine or fewer
aircraft operating in the vicinity of the DFW Class B airspace area.
Only unscheduled aircraft operators without the capability to operate
under IFR conditions will be potentially impacted by the final rule.
The FAA contends that the unscheduled air taxi operators that the final
rule may potentially affect are already equipped to operate under IFR
conditions. The FAA has concluded that the potentially impacted
operators regularly fly to airports where radar approach control
services have already been established such as the DFW Class B airspace
area; therefore, there will be no additional cost to these entities.
The FAA does not anticipate any adverse impacts to occur as a result of
the final rule. The FAA has concluded that the final rule will not
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Unfunded Mandate Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal
agency, to extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of
effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that
may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 204(a) of
the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to develop an
effective process to permit timely input by elected officers (or their
designees) of State, local and tribal governments on a proposed
``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A ``significant
intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any provision in a Federal
agency regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the
Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 204(a), provides that
before establishing any regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall
have developed a plan that among other things, provides for notice for
potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a meaningful
and timely opportunity to provide input in the development of
regulatory proposals.
This rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or private
sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection requests requiring
approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).
Federalism Implications
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
the relationship between the national government and the States, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52 FR
41695; October 30,1987), it is determined that this rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
For reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the findings in
the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the International Trade
Impact Assessment, the FAA has determined that this regulation is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. In
addition, the FAA certifies that this regulation 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. This regulation is not considered significant under
DOT Order 2100.5, Policies and Procedures for Simplification, Analysis
and Review of Regulations. A final regulatory evaluation, including a
final Regulatory Flexibility Determination and International Trade
Impact Assessment, has been placed in the docket. A copy may be
obtained by contacting the person identified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
The Amendment
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 3000--Subpart B-Class B Airspace
* * * * *
ASW TX B Dallas-Fort Worth, TX [Revised]
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (Primary Airport)
(lat. 32 deg.53'49'' N., long. 97 deg.02'33'' W.)
Dallas-Fort Worth VORTAC
(lat. 32 deg.51'57' N., long. 97 deg.01'41'' W.)
Boundaries
Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 11,000 feet MSL beginning at the intersection of the DFW
VORTAC 10-mile arc and Josey Lane, thence southbound on Josey Lane
to Forest Lane, thence eastbound on Forest Lane until I-635 (that
also coincides with the DFW VORTAC 15-mile arc), extending clockwise
on the DFW VORTAC 15-mile arc until the DFW VORTAC 129 deg. radial
15-mile DME fix, thence northwest on the DFW VORTAC 129 deg. radial
until I-30, extending west on I-30 until the DFW VORTAC 7-mile arc,
thence clockwise on the DFW VORTAC 7-mile arc until the DFW VORTAC
310 deg. radial 7-mile DME fix, extending northwest on the DFW
VORTAC 310 deg. radial until the DFW VORTAC 310 deg. radial 10-mile
DME fix, and extending clockwise on the DFW VORTAC 10-mile arc to
the point of beginning.
Area B. That airspace extending upward from 2,000 feet MSL to
and including 11,000 feet MSL beginning at the DFW VORTAC 310 deg.
radial 10-mile DME fix, thence southeast on the DFW VORTAC 310 deg.
radial until the DFW VORTAC 310 deg. radial 7-mile DME fix,
extending counterclockwise on the DFW VORTAC 7-mile arc until I-30,
thence eastbound on I-30 to the DFW VORTAC 129 deg. radial, thence
southeast on the DFW VORTAC 129 deg. radial until the DFW VORTAC
129 deg. radial 10-mile DME fix, extending clockwise on the DFW
VORTAC 10-mile arc until SH-303, thence west on SH-303 until the DFW
VORTAC 10-mile DME arc, and extending clockwise on the DFW VORTAC
[[Page 47819]]
10-mile arc to the DFW VORTAC 300 deg. radial 10-mile DME fix,
thence northwest on the 300 deg. radial until the DFW VORTAC
300 deg. 13-mile DME fix, extending clockwise on the DFW VORTAC 13-
mile arc until the DFW VORTAC 023 deg. radial 13-mile DME fix,
thence southeast on the DFW VORTAC 023 deg. radial until the DFW
VORTAC 023 deg. radial 10-mile DME fix, extending counterclockwise
on the DFW VORTAC 10-mile arc to the DFW VORTAC 310 deg. 10-mile DME
fix; and that airspace extending upward from 2,000 feet MSL to and
including 11,000 feet MSL beginning at the intersection of the DFW
VORTAC 10-mile arc and Josey Lane, thence southbound on Josey Lane
to Forest Lane, thence eastbound on Forest Lane to I-635, thence
westbound on I-635 to the DFW VORTAC 10-mile arc, and extending
counterclockwise on the DFW VORTAC 10-mile arc to the point of
beginning.
Area C. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 11,000 feet MSL beginning at the intersection of the
DFW VORTAC 15-mile arc and I-635, extending clockwise on the DFW
VORTAC 15-mile arc until the DFW VORTAC 129 deg. radial 15-mile DME
fix, thence southeast on the DFW VORTAC 129 deg. radial until the
DFW VORTAC 129 deg. radial 20-mile DME fix, extending
counterclockwise on the DFW VORTAC 20-mile arc until I-635, and
extending northwest along I-635 to the point of beginning.
Area D. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 11,000 feet MSL beginning at the DFW VORTAC 300 deg.
radial 10-mile DME fix, extending counterclockwise on the DFW VORTAC
10-mile arc to SH-303, thence eastbound on SH-303 until the DFW
VORTAC 10-mile arc, extending counterclockwise on the DFW VORTAC 10-
mile arc to the DFW VORTAC 129 deg. radial, thence southeast along
the DFW VORTAC 129 deg. radial until the DFW VORTAC 129 deg. radial
20-mile DME fix, extending clockwise on the DFW VORTAC 20-mile arc
until the DFW VORTAC 217 deg. radial, thence northeast on the DFW
VORTAC 217 deg. radial until the DFW VORTAC 217 deg. radial 13-mile
DME fix, extending clockwise along the DFW VORTAC 13-mile arc to the
DFW VORTAC 300 deg. radial 13-mile DME fix, and thence southeast on
the DFW VORTAC 300 deg. radial to the point of beginning; and that
airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to and including
11,000 feet MSL beginning at the DFW VORTAC 300 deg. radial 13-mile
DME fix, thence northwest on the DFW VORTAC 300 deg. radial until
the DFW VORTAC 300 deg. radial 20-mile DME fix, extending clockwise
on the DFW VORTAC 20-mile arc until I-635, extending northwest along
I-635 until the DFW VORTAC 10-mile arc, extending counterclockwise
on the DFW VORTAC 10-mile arc until the DFW VORTAC 023 deg. radial
10-mile DME fix, thence northeast on the DFW VORTAC 023 deg. radial
until the DFW VORTAC 023 deg. radial 13-mile DME fix, and extending
counterclockwise on the DFW VORTAC 13-mile arc to the point of
beginning.
Area E. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 11,000 feet MSL beginning at the DFW VORTAC 217 deg.
radial 20-mile DME fix, extending counterclockwise on the DFW VORTAC
20-mile arc until the DFW VORTAC 300 deg. radial 20-mile DME fix,
thence southeast on the DFW VORTAC 300 deg. radial until the DFW
VORTAC 300 deg. radial 13-mile DME fix, extending counterclockwise
on the DFW VORTAC 13-mile arc until the DFW VORTAC 217 deg. radial
13-mile DME fix, thence southwest on the DFW VORTAC 217 deg. radial
until the DFW VORTAC 217 deg. radial 20-mile fix, extending
clockwise on the DFW VORTAC 20-mile arc until I-820, thence west and
north on I-820 until the DFW VORTAC 23-mile arc, extending clockwise
on the DFW VORTAC 23-mile arc until SH-156, thence northeast on SH-
156 until the DFW VORTAC 329 deg. radial, thence northwest on the
DFW VORTAC 329 deg. radial until intercepting a line defined by the
DFW VORTAC 041 deg. radial 30 DME fix and the DFW VORTAC 315 deg.
radial 30 DME fix, thence east along that line defined by the DFW
VORTAC 041 deg. radial 30 DME fix and the DFW VORTAC 315 deg. radial
30 DME fix until the DFW VORTAC 30-mile arc, extending clockwise on
the DFW VORTAC 30-mile arc until the DFW VORTAC 138 deg. radial 30-
mile DME fix, thence west until the DFW VORTAC 217 deg. radial 28.3
mile DME fix, and thence northeast on the DFW VORTAC 217 deg. radial
until the point of beginning.
Area F. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL, to
and including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at the DFW VORTAC 138 deg.
30-mile DME fix, extending clockwise on the DFW VORTAC 30-mile DME
arc until the DFW VORTAC 149 deg. radial 30-mile DME fix, thence
west to the DFW VORTAC 210 deg. radial 30-mile DME fix, extending
clockwise on the DFW VORTAC 30-mile DME arc until the DFW VORTAC
217 deg. radial 30-mile DME fix, thence northeast on the DFW VORTAC
217 deg. radial to the 28.3-mile DME fix and then east on a line to
the point of the beginning, and that airspace extending upward from
4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL beginning at the DFW
VORTAC 315 deg. radial 30-mile DME fix, extending clockwise on the
DFW VORTAC 30-mile arc until the DFW 336 deg. radial 30-mile DME
fix, thence east until the DFW VORTAC 020 deg. radial 30-mile DME
fix, extending clockwise on the DFW VORTAC 30-mile arc until the DFW
VORTAC 041 deg. radial 30-mile DME fix, and thence west on a line
until the point of beginning.
Area G. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL, up
to and including 11,000 feet MSL beginning at the DFW VORTAC
315 deg. radial 30-mile DME fix, extending counterclockwise on the
DFW VORTAC 30-mile arc until the DFW VORTAC 293 deg. radial, thence
southeast on the DFW VORTAC 293 deg. radial until the DFW VORTAC 26-
mile DME fix, extending counterclockwise on the DFW VORTAC 26-mile
arc until SH-377, thence southwest on SH-377 until the DFW VORTAC
30-mile arc, and counterclockwise to the DFW VORTAC 217 deg. radial
30-mile DME fix, thence northeast on the DFW VORTAC 217 deg. radial
until the DFW VORTAC 20-mile arc, extending clockwise on the 20-mile
arc until I-820, thence west and north on I-820 until the DFW VORTAC
23-mile arc, thence clockwise on the DFW VORTAC 23-mile arc until
SH-156, extending northeast on SH-156 to the DFW VORTAC 329 deg.
radial, thence northeast on the DFW VORTAC 329 deg. radial, until
intercepting a line defined by the DFW VORTAC 041 deg. radial 30-
mile DME fix and the DFW VORTAC 315 deg. radial 30-mile DME fix,
thence west along that line until the point of beginning.
Area H. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 11,000 feet MSL beginning at the DFW VORTAC 293 deg.
radial 30-mile DME fix, thence southeast on the DFW VORTAC 293 deg.
radial until the DFW VORTAC 293 deg. radial 26-mile DME fix,
extending counterclockwise on the DFW VORTAC 26-mile arc until SH-
377, thence southwest on SH-377 until the DFW VORTAC 30-mile arc,
and extending clockwise on the DFW VORTAC 30-mile arc until the
point of the beginning.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 3, 1996.
Jeff Griffith,
Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-1.
Note: This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations. Appendix--Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Class
B Airspace Area.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 47820]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE96.001
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
[FR Doc. 96-23247 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23245 Safety Zone Regulations; Bellingham Bay, Bellingham, WA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47823-47824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23245]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD13-96-028]
RIN 2115-AA97
Safety Zone Regulations; Bellingham Bay, Bellingham, WA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this direct final rule, the Coast Guard is permanently
amending a safety zone regulation for the annual Fourth of July Blast
Over Bellingham Fireworks Display in Bellingham Bay, Bellingham,
Washington. Changes made to this regulation will revise the boundaries
of the safety zone. This change is intended to better inform the
boating public and to improve the level of safety at this event.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on December 10, 1996, unless the
Coast Guard receives written adverse comments or written notice of
intent to submit adverse comments on or before November 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety
Office Puget Sound 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134
(Telephone: (206) 217-6237). The comments and other materials
referenced in this notice will be available for inspection and copying
at the above address in Building 1. Normal office hours are between 7
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Comments may also be hand-delivered to this address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant (Junior Grade) J. B. Roberts, Port Services Department, U.S.
Coast Guard MSO Puget Sound Seattle, WA (Telephone: (206) 217-6237).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
Any comments must identify the name and address of the person
submitting the comment, specify the rulemaking docket (CGD13-96-028)
and the specific section of this rule to which each comment applies,
and give the reason for each specific comment. Please submit two copies
of all comments and attachments in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.
Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of comments should enclose
stamped, self-addressed postcards or envelopes.
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard is publishing a direct final rule, the procedures
of which are outlined in 33 CFR 1.05-55, because no
[[Page 47824]]
adverse comments are anticipated. If no adverse comments or any written
notice of intent to submit adverse comment are received within the
specified comment period, this rule will become effective as stated in
the EFFECTIVE DATE section. In that case, approximately 30 days prior
to the effective date, the Coast Guard will publish a notice in the
Federal Register stating that no adverse comment was received and
confirming that this rule will become effective as scheduled. However,
if the Coast Guard receives written adverse comment or written notice
of intent to submit adverse comment, the Coast Guard will publish a
notice in the final rule section of the Federal Register to announce
withdrawal of all or part of this direct final rule. If adverse
comments apply to only part of this rule, and it is possible to remove
that part without defeating the purpose of this rule, the Coast Guard
may adopt as final those parts of this rule on which no adverse
comments were received. The part of this rule that was the subject of
adverse comment will be withdrawn. If the Coast Guard decides to
proceed with a rulemaking following receipt of adverse comments, a
separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will be published and a
new opportunity for comment provided.
A comment is considered ``adverse'' if the comment explains why
this rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's
underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable
without a change.
Background and Purpose
The annual Fourth of July Blast Over Bellingham is held on the
waters of Bellingham Bay each year from 9:30 p.m. (PST) to 11 p.m.
(PST) on July fourth and is sponsored by the Whatcom County Chamber of
Commerce. Under current Coast Guard regulations, 33 CFR Sec. 165.1304,
a safety zone regulation is established each year during the event to
provide for public safety by keeping spectators away from the fireworks
launching site during the fireworks display.
The current regulations do not accurately reflect the current
location of the fireworks launching site and the area surrounding this
site.This direct final rule will amend the description of the safety
zone created by 33 CFR 165.1304 to accurately reflect the current
fireworks launching site and better provide for the safety of
spectators and property in the immediate vicinity of the event.
Discussion of Rules
This direct final rule will amend the description of the safety
zone in 33 CFR Sec. 165.1304 to include all waters of Bellingham Bay,
Washington, bounded by a circle with a radius of 1000 yards centered on
the fireworks launching site located on the Georgia Pacific Lagoon
Seawall at position latitude 48 deg.44'56'' N, longitude
122 deg.29'40'' W, including the entrances to the I & J Street Waterway
and the Whatcom Creek Waterway.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph
10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
This conclusion is based on the fact that only minor changes are being
made to the regulations and that the changes made reduce the area
affected by approximately one-half mile.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider the economic impact on small entities of a
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required.
``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The safety zone created by this section is being moved to reflect
the current launch site, and will not take place during more than a few
hours each year on the Fourth of July. For these reasons, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this change will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection-of-information requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2.e.34(h) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, (as revised by 59 FR 38654, July 29, 1994), this
rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documents. A
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ``ADDRESSES.''
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
Regulation
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Section 165.1304 is amended by revising paragraph (a) as
follows:
Sec. 165.1304 Safety Zone Regulations; Bellingham Bay, Bellingham,
Washington.
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
Bellingham Bay, Washington, bounded by a circle with a radius of 1000
yards centered on the fireworks launching site located on the Georgia
Pacific Lagoon Seawall at position latitude 48 deg.44'56'' N, longitude
122 deg.29'40'' W, including the entrances to the I & J Street Waterway
and the Whatcom Creek Waterway.
[Datum: NAD 83]
* * * * *
Dated: August 19, 1996.
Myles S. Boothe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 96-23245 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23244 Special Local Regulations; Hilton Head, SC
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47822-47823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23244]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD07-96-051]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulations; Hilton Head, SC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Temporary special local regulations are being adopted for the
U.S. Offshore World Championship Power Boat Races. The event will be
held from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. EST (Eastern Standard Time) on October 30-
November 2, 1996 on the Atlantic Ocean at Hilton Head Island, SC. These
regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on the
navigable waters during the event.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST,
daily, on October 30 to November 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this
preamble are available for copying and inspection at U.S. Coast Guard
Group Charleston, 196 Tradd Street, Charleston, SC 29401-1817, between
8 a.m. and 3 p.m. EST, except federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ENS M. DaPonte, U.S. Coast Guard Group Charleston, SC at (803) 724-
7621.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of
proposed rulemaking was not published for these regulations. Following
normal rulemaking procedures would have been impracticable, since there
is not sufficient time remaining to publish proposed rules in advance
of the event or to provide for a delayed effective date.
Discussion of Regulations
Temporary special local regulations are being adopted for the U.S.
Offshore World Championship Power Boat Races. The event will be held
from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. EST on October 30-November 2, 1996 on the
Atlantic Ocean at Hilton Head Island, SC. There will be approximately
between 60-90 event participants racing high performance power boats on
a fixed course. The event will take place on the portion of the
Atlantic Ocean at Hilton Head Island, SC, between Forest Beach and Port
Royal Plantation, approximately 2 miles off shore on a \1/4\ mile wide
oval race course. This rule is required to provide for the safety of
life on the navigable waters during the running of the U.S. Offshore
World Championship Power Boat Races.
A regulated area is established on that portion of the Atlantic
Ocean, at Hilton Head Island, SC, starting at Port Royal Plantation at
32 deg.12.9' N, 080 deg.40.2' W, 1 thence east to 32 deg.12.9' N,
080 deg.39.7' W, thence southeast to 32 deg.10.2' N, 080 deg.36.8' W,
thence southwest to 32 deg.03.3' N, 080 deg.42.5' W northwest to Forest
Beach at 32 deg.07.0' N, 080 deg.46.9' W. All coordinates referenced
use Datum: NAD 1983.
A spectator viewing area is also established on that portion of the
Atlantic Ocean, at Hilton Head Island, SC, between the regulated area
described above, and the following points, commencing at Port Royal
Plantation at 32 deg.13.5' N, 080 deg.40.3' W, thence east to
32 deg.13.5' N, 080 deg.38.3' W, thence southeast to 32 deg.10.2' N,
080 deg.36.4' W, thence southwest to 32 deg.02.5' N, 080 deg.42.4' W,
thence northwest to Forest Beach at 32 deg.06.8' N, 080 deg.48.5' W.
All coordinates referenced use Datum: NAD 1983.
Entry into the regulated area by other than authorized event
participants or official patrol vessels is prohibited, unless otherwise
authorized by the Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may anchor or
transit the spectator viewing area at a slow, no wake speed during the
event.
Regulatory Evaluation
This event is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under 6 (a) and (f) of that order. It has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. The regulated area encompasses less than 54 square
nautical miles on the Atlantic Ocean between Forest Beach and Port
Royal Plantation, out to approximately 6 nautical miles to sea, which
movement into the regulated area will be controlled for only seven
hours on each day of the event.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small
[[Page 47823]]
entities. ``Small entities'' include independently owned and operated
small businesses that are not dominant in their field and that
otherwise qualify as ``small business concerns'' under Section 3 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
For reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
These regulations contain no collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
proposal consistent with Section 2.B.2. of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B. In accordance with that section, this action has been
environmentally assessed (EA completed), and the Coast Guard has
determined the event to be categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. An environmental checklist and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination has been prepared and are available
in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Waterways.
Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 100 of Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, the Coast Guard amends as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. A temporary section 100.35-T96-051 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.35-T96-051 Special Local Regulations; Atlantic Ocean at
Hilton Head Island, SC.
(a) Definitions:
(1) Regulated Area. A regulated area is established on that portion
of the Atlantic Ocean, at Hilton Head Island, SC, starting at Port
Royal Plantation at 32 deg.12.9'N, 080 deg.40.2'W, thence east to
32 deg.12.9'N, 080 deg.39.7'W, thence southeast to 32 deg.10.2'N,
080 deg.36.8'W, thence southwest to 32 deg.03.3'N, 080 deg.42.5'W
northwest to Forest Beach at 32 deg.07.0'N, 080 deg.46.9'W. All
coordinates referenced use Datum: NAD 1983.
(2) Spectator Viewing Area. A spectator viewing area is also
established on that portion of the Atlantic Ocean, at Hilton Head
Island, SC, between the regulated area described above, and the
following points, commencing at Port Royal Plantation at 32 deg.13.5'N,
080 deg.40.3'W, thence east to 32 deg.13.5'N, 080 deg.38.3'W, thence
southeast to 32 deg.10.2'N, 080 deg.36.4'W, thence southwest to
32 deg.02.5'N, 080 deg.42.4'W, thence northwest to Forest Beach at
32 deg.06.8'N, 080 deg.48.5'W. All coordinates referenced use Datum:
NAD 1983.
(3) Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander
is a commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has
been designated in writing by the Commander, Coast Guard Group
Charleston, South Carolina.
(b) Special local regulations.
(1) Entry into the regulated area by other than authorized event
participants or official patrol vessels is prohibited, unless otherwise
authorized by the Patrol Commander.
(2) Spectator vessels may anchor or transit the spectator viewing
area at a slow, no wake speed during the event.
(3) At the conclusion of the U.S. World Championship power boat
races each day, at the discretion of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
all vessels may enter the regulated area.
(c) Effective Dates. These regulations become effective at 10 a.m.
to 5 p.m., daily, on October 30 to November 2, 1996, unless otherwise
specified in the Seventh Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners.
Dated: August 28, 1996.
J.D. Hull,
Captain. U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-23244 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23222 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan: National Priorities List Update
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23222]
[[Page 47825]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5608-4]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan:
National Priorities List Update
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Site from
the National Priorities List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, announces
the deletion of the Liquid Gold Oil Corporation site from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part
300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA). EPA and the State of
California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) have determined that no further cleanup under
CERCLA is appropriate and that the selected remedy has been protective
of human health and the environment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Lincoff, U.S. EPA Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mail Code H-6-3, San Francisco, California 94105
(510) 412-2330, OR Ben Hargrove, Cal/EPA DTSC Region 2, 700 Heinz
Avenue, Suite 200, Berkeley, California 94710, (510) 540-3845.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Liquid Gold Oil Corporation site, Richmond, California.
A Notice of Intent to Delete for this site was published on April
12, 1996 (XX FR 16234). The closing date for comments on the Notice of
Intent to Delete was May 12, 1996. EPA received no comments.
EPA identifies sites which appear to present a significant risk to
human health, welfare or the environment, and it maintains the NPL as
the list of those sites. Sites on the NPL may be subject of Hazardous
Substances Response Trust Fund-financed remedial actions. Any site
deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial
actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such
action. Section 300.425 of the NCP states that Fund-financed actions
may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of a site from the
NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede Agency
efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
penalties, reporting and record keeping, requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: September 3, 1996.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Appendix B--[AMENDED]
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the
Liquid Gold Oil Corporation Site, Richmond, California.
[FR Doc. 96-23222 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23190 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 15
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47827-47828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23190]
[[Page 47827]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 960830238-6238-01; I.D. 082096B]
RIN 0648-AJ07
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast
Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 15
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement measures contained in
Framework Adjustment 15 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan (FMP). This rule extends the timing of the Mid-coast
Closure Area for vessels fishing with sink gillnet gear from the
current November through December period to September 15 through
December 31. The intent of this action is to reduce further the
incidental mortality of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine sink
gillnet fishery to meet porpoise bycatch reduction goals. This rule
also makes several corrections to the regulatory text.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 7 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan (Amendment 7), its regulatory impact review (RIR) and
the final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) contained with the
RIR, its final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS), and
Framework Adjustment 15 documents are available upon request from
Christopher Kellogg, Acting Executive Director, New England Fishery
Management Council (Council), 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906-1097.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. Martin Jaffe, NMFS, Fishery Policy
Analyst, 508-281-9272.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1993, at the request of NMFS, the Council agreed to develop a
strategy to reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine
sink gillnet fishery by integrating a mitigation plan with fishery
management measures. Subsequently, one of Amendment 5's (59 FR 9872,
March 1, 1994) principal objectives was to reduce the bycatch of harbor
porpoise in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery by the end of year 4
of the plan's implementation to a level not to exceed 2 percent of the
population, based on the best available estimates of abundance and
bycatch. Amendment 7 to the FMP (61 FR 27710, May 31, 1996),
implemented in July 1996 included an objective for harbor porpoise that
was revised to be consistent with the 1994 amendments to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The Council's new provision requires
reductions in the incidental mortality and serious injury of harbor
porpoise in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery to the potential
biological removal (PBR) level identified for this stock through the
process described in section 117 of the MMPA by April 1, 1997, the date
required for compliance with section 118(f)(5)(A) of the MMPA. Based on
current population and life history information, the PBR level is 403
animals for Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise.
In view of the Council's revised objective, which is to reduce the
harbor porpoise bycatch to the PBR level by April 1, 1997, coupled with
the most recent bycatch estimate (2,000 harbor porpoise in 1994) and
the fact that the Mid-coast Closure Area in the fall accounts for more
than 50 percent of the harbor porpoise bycatch in the Gulf of Maine,
management action is necessary in order to make further progress toward
the Council's bycatch reduction goals. The 1995 bycatch estimate is not
yet available but is expected to be somewhat lower than the most recent
figure (2,000 animals in 1994). In addition, analysis of recent survey
data have resulted in a larger population estimate that will revise the
PBR level to 490 animals (pending approval by the Atlantic Scientific
Review Group). However, there is no preliminary information that
indicates that the current bycatch approaches even the newly projected
PBR level of 490 animals.
There are currently four time/area closures in place to protect
harbor porpoise. This action extends the existing Mid-coast Closure
Area in time to sink gillnet gear based on information collected for
the fall period, 1990-95. During the September through December period
analyzed, bycatch was highest in October and November. September and
December were months with more variability but, in some years,
accounted for a significant percentage of the fall bycatch. Framework
Adjustment 15 will close the Mid-coast Closure Area to gillnet gear
from September 15 through October 31. This will precede the November 1
through December 31 closure to all gear capable of catching
multispecies and will result in a total closure period for gillnet gear
in this area of September 15 through December 31.
The Council, in consideration of recommendations by the Harbor
Porpoise Review Team (HPRT) and Marine Mammal Committee, proposed this
September 15 through October 31 additional Mid-coast Closure Area
period and also requested the Director, Northeast Region, NMFS
(Regional Director), to investigate the possibility of the use of
acoustic deterrents as a condition or requirement to fish with sink
gillnets in the area to mitigate harbor porpoise bycatch. The Regional
Director agreed to investigate the feasibility of further use of the
devices in a concurrent action.
The Council is making this adjustment to the regulations under the
abbreviated framework rulemaking procedure codified at 50 CFR part 648,
subpart F. This procedure requires the Council, when making
specifically allowed adjustments to the FMP, to develop and analyze the
actions over the span of at least two Council meetings. The Council
must provide the public with advance notice of both the proposals and
the analysis and opportunity to comment on them prior to and at a
second Council meeting. Upon review of the analysis and public comment,
the Council may recommend to the Regional Director that the measures be
published as a final rule if certain conditions are met. The Regional
Director may publish the measures as a final rule, or as a proposed
rule if additional public comment is needed.
This final rule implements an additional closure period from
September 15 through October 31 and results in an expanded period for
the Mid-coast Closure Area for vessels using gillnet gear. This area
will thus be closed to gillnet gear from September 15 through December
31 of each fishing year.
This issue was discussed at a Marine Mammal Committee meeting held
on May 21, 1996, and at two Council meetings, the minimum required
under the Northeast Multispecies FMP framework adjustment process. Both
Council meetings were held in Danvers, MA, the first on June 5, 1996,
and the second on July 17, 1996. Documents summarizing the Council's
proposed action, the biological analyses upon which this decision was
based, and potential economic impacts were available for public review
5 days prior to the second meeting required under the framework
adjustment process. Written comments were accepted through July 16,
1996. Comments on the Council's proposal were received at
[[Page 47828]]
meetings from individuals and representatives of the International
Wildlife Coalition, Cape Ann Gillnetters Association and the Mass
Netters Association.
Finally, this rule contains corrections to Sec. 648.87.
Specifically, incorrect paragraph references are corrected in
Sec. 648.87, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), and, in paragraph (b)(2), an
inconsistent reference to the ``Cape Cod South Closure Area'' is
corrected, an incorrect closure date is corrected, and the word ``map''
is changed to ``chart''.
Comments and Responses
Comment: Several individuals addressed the need to continue to
reduce harbor porpoise bycatch in the fall months.
Response: The Council concurred based on biological analyses
provided by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and the
recommendation of the HPRT. Information collected during 1990-95
indicates a pattern of high takes of harbor porpoise in the sink
gillnet fishery throughout the fall months. The bycatch is highest,
however, in October and November. The Mid-coast Closure Area is already
closed to most gear to protect multispecies finfish during the months
of November and December under Amendment 7 to the FMP. The September 15
to December 31 closure period would remain in effect for the sink
gillnet fishery to protect harbor porpoise even if changes occur to the
closures implemented for multispecies conservation.
Comment: Several fishermen commented that the MMPA and Council
goal of reaching the PBR level by April 1997 is neither realistic nor
warranted.
Response: The PBR level goal and the process for determining the
PBR level have a strong biological basis and were developed to meet
requirements of other applicable law. This includes the MMPA, which was
reauthorized in 1994 to include the PBR level stipulations.
Adherence to Framework Procedure Requirements
The Council considered the public comments received prior to making
its recommendation to the Regional Director under the provisions for
abbreviated rulemaking in this FMP. The Council requested publication
of these management measures as a final rule after considering the
required factors stipulated under the framework measures in the FMP, 50
CFR 648.90, and has provided supporting analyses for each factor
considered. NMFS concurs.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds there is
good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Public meetings held by the Council to
discuss the management measures implemented by this rule provided
adequate prior notice and an opportunity for public comment to be heard
and considered. The AA finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the need to
have this regulation in place by September 15, 1996, is good cause to
waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this regulation. Delay of
implementation of this regulation beyond September 15, 1996, would
likely impede the achievement of harbor porpoise mortality reduction
goals.
Because this regulation is not being published as a general notice
of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, this rule
is exempt from the requirement to prepare an initial or final
regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
As such, none has been prepared.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 5, 1996.
N. Foster,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended
to read as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 648.87, paragraph (b)(1) and the heading and first
sentence of paragraph (b)(2) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.87 Sink gillnet requirements to reduce harbor porpoise takes.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Mid-coast Closure Area. From March 25 through April 25 and from
September 15 through October 31 of each fishing year, the restrictions
and requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section apply to
the Mid-coast Closure Area, as defined under Sec. 648.81(g)(1).
(2) Cape Cod South Closure Area. From March 1 through March 30 of
each fishing year, the restrictions and requirements specified in
paragraph (b) of this section apply to the Cape Cod South Closure Area
(copies of a chart depicting this area are available from the Regional
Director upon request), which is the area bounded by straight lines
connecting the following points in the order stated. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-23190 Filed 9-6-96; 11:37 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23166 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development; Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program for Homeless Individuals; Final Rule
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48052-48061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23166]
[[Page 48051]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Parts 582 and 882
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program for
Homeless Individuals; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 11, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 48052]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Parts 582 and 882
[Docket No. FR-3929-F-03]
RIN 2506-AB75
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development; Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy
Program for Homeless Individuals; Final Rule
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule represents the final rulemaking for three interim
rules implementing the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room
Occupancy Program for Homeless Individuals. The interim rules clarified
program definitions and requirements, conformed the regulations with
statutory and other changes, and simplified the application selection
and tenant outreach processes by conforming them with the processes
used in other HUD-administered competitive McKinney Act programs. This
final rule adopts the interim rules as final and includes a discussion
of the public comments received on the interim rules. This final rule
also further streamlines the regulations by eliminating provisions that
are redundant of statutes or are otherwise unnecessary, in accordance
with the President's regulatory reform initiatives.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie H. Taylor, Director, Office of
Special Needs Assistance Programs, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; (202) 708-
4300 (this number is not toll-free). Hearing- or speech-impaired
persons may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal
Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The purpose of the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) Program for Homeless Individuals is to provide rental
assistance to homeless individuals in rehabilitated SRO housing. Under
this program HUD awards assistance through a national competition that
focuses on filling gaps identified in locally-developed continuum of
care systems for assisting persons who are homeless. The program is
authorized by title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.) (the McKinney Act). HUD published its
first final rule for the program in the Federal Register on November 7,
1989 (54 FR 46832).
Since that time, HUD has amended these regulations through three
interim rules. Regulations that HUD publishes in interim rules become
effective like final rules--30 days after publication in the Federal
Register. Unlike final rules, however, interim rules invite the public
to comment on their provisions.
The purpose of today's final rule is to adopt as final the
provisions of the SRO regulations that were the product of the three
interim rules. The preamble of this final rule summarizes the public
comments HUD received on each of the three interim rules and provides
HUD's responses to the comments as appropriate. This final rule also
improves the SRO regulations by clarifying and further streamlining the
provisions, as described below.
II. March 15, 1993 Interim Rule
HUD published an interim rule amending the SRO regulations on March
15, 1993 (58 FR 13828). The March 15, 1993 interim rule adopted a
standardized funding award process for competitively awarded assistance
under the McKinney Act. This process consisted of two stages under
which HUD would, after conditionally selecting applicants, require
those applicants to submit additional technical information, such as
project rent calculations (see Sec. 882.805 (c) and (d) of the interim
rule).
The March 15, 1993 interim rule also conformed the SRO program with
other McKinney Act programs by removing the provisions requiring that
units be leased to homeless individuals referred from a housing
authority (HA) waiting list. Instead, the interim rule provided
flexibility to HAs and owners by allowing them to engage in outreach
efforts to bring homeless individuals into the program, and it provided
that vacant units be rented directly to homeless individuals located
through these outreach efforts (see Sec. 882.808).
Additionally, the March 15, 1993 interim rule amended the SRO
regulations to reflect a statutory amendment permitting an HA to
contract with itself to receive SRO assistance for a project that it
owns. The rule provided that HA-owners are subject to the same
requirements that apply to other owners in the program, and that HUD
must approve the base and contract rent calculations for these projects
prior to execution of the agreement to enter into a housing assistance
payments (HAP) contract and prior to the execution of the HAP contract
(see Sec. 882.803(e)).
The March 15, 1993 interim rule also amended Secs. 882.802 and
882.805(f)(6) to reflect section 127 of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-235; approved
December 15, 1989), which raised the minimum amount of rehabilitation
necessary to qualify a unit for assistance under the program to $3,000
per unit, and which limited the size of projects to no more than 100
assisted units.
Lastly, the interim rule clarified the definition of ``Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) housing'' in Sec. 882.802, the requirements for using
SRO assistance in conjunction with the rehabilitation of efficiency
units in the program, and HUD's right to require recipients of
assistance to maintain any records and make any reports that HUD
requires (see Sec. 882.808(p)).
Summary of Public Comments
The deadline for submitting public comments on the March 15, 1993
interim rule was May 14, 1993. By that date, HUD received comments from
three organizations. After considering these comments, which are
described below, HUD decided not to make any changes based on these
comments in this final rule.
Two-Stage Application Process
All three commenters supported the new two-stage application
process (see Sec. 882.805(c) and (d) of the interim rule). As HUD
stated in the preamble to the interim rule, under the new process,
applicants submitting proposals that were not conditionally selected
for funding would not have to incur the costs of addressing technical
issues, such as securing financial commitments from other sources, only
to have HUD reject their applications.
HUD Response: The two-stage application process has been in effect
for three years, and HUD believes the process has been successful in
reducing the burden on applicants and in providing conditionally
selected applicants with the opportunity to receive ongoing HUD
assistance in meeting the technical submission requirements.
Conformance with Other McKinney Act Programs
The commenters supported the provisions of the March 15, 1993
interim rule that conformed the SRO program with the other McKinney Act
[[Page 48053]]
programs. The commenters especially supported the interim rule's
requirement that HAs or owners engage in outreach efforts to bring
homeless individuals into the program, rather than using HA waiting
lists (see Sec. 882.808). One commenter noted that the new outreach
process would be a more efficient process for locating homeless
individuals.
HUD Response: As indicated in the preamble to the interim rule,
private nonprofit organizations, HAs, and project owners had expressed
to HUD that the HA waiting list was an impractical method of locating
homeless individuals for participation in the program, given the
transient nature of many of these individuals. HUD is pleased that
commenters supported the increased flexibility that the rule provided
to them.
Records and Reports
The commenters supported the interim rule's requirement in
Sec. 882.808(p) that each recipient of assistance under this program
maintain any records and make any reports that HUD may require.
HUD Response: HUD has used this authority to implement annual
progress reporting requirements in the SRO program similar to those
used in other HUD-administered McKinney Act programs. The goal of these
reports is to provide recipients the opportunity to demonstrate the
progress they are making in areas such as increasing the skills and
income of program participants.
Private Nonprofit Organizations as Direct Applicants
The preamble to the March 15, 1993 interim rule noted that section
1405 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
11399) amended the SRO program, providing in part that private
nonprofit organizations could apply directly for SRO assistance.
Although the interim rule did not change the regulations to reflect
this amendment, one commenter questioned whether HUD would scrutinize
these nonprofit organizations as thoroughly as it scrutinizes housing
authorities. This commenter also expressed concern that HUD was leading
these organizations to believe they could apply for public housing
administration or Section 8 program administration funds.
HUD Response: HUD has used the ability of the applicant to develop
and operate a project as a rating criterion for applications. Under
this criterion, HUD subjects HAs and private nonprofit applicants to
the same scrutiny. Additionally, the statutory provision allowing
private nonprofit organizations to apply for assistance, and HUD's
subsequent implementation of this provision (see the discussion of the
February 14, 1996 interim rule, below), clearly only apply to the SRO
program.
Definition of ``Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing''
All of the commenters supported the March 15, 1993 interim rule's
revision of the definition of ``Single room occupancy (SRO) housing''
in Sec. 882.802 to include units with or without food preparation or
sanitary facilities. One commenter suggested that HUD expand the
program to include units that could accommodate more than one person,
since families are now a large proportion of the homeless population.
HUD Response: According to section 441 of the McKinney Act, HUD may
only provide assistance for SRO units occupied by single homeless
individuals. The legislative history of section 441 of the McKinney
Act, which HUD recounts in the first final rule for the SRO program
published in the Federal Register on November 7, 1989 (54 FR 46828),
clearly indicates that Congress intended that assistance under this
program only be used for single homeless individuals, and not
multiperson families.
While there is no statutory authority to provide assistance to
homeless families under the SRO program, these families can receive
assistance under other McKinney Act programs, including the Supportive
Housing program (24 CFR part 583) and the Shelter Plus Care program (24
CFR part 582).
Efficiency Units
The March 15, 1993 interim rule amended Sec. 882.805(g)(4) to
clarify that SRO program assistance may be used for efficiency units,
but the gross rent for these units will be no higher than for SRO
units. One commenter recommended that HUD amend the paragraph even
further to provide that contract rents should include service-related
hard costs, such as those related to the creation of office and meeting
space. The commenter also suggested HUD include in this paragraph a
list of reasonable service-related hard costs that could be included in
contract rents.
HUD Response: HUD has described in detail the provisions on
eligible and ineligible costs in the technical assistance book on the
SRO program that HUD issues each year. HUD believes that repeating
these detailed provisions in the regulations would unnecessarily
complicate the regulations, and that such repetition would be
inconsistent with the President's regulatory reform initiatives
(described below in this preamble, under the heading ``Regulatory
Reform'').
On a substantive level, the technical assistance book indicates
that rehabilitation of space that will be used to provide supportive
services to program participants is an eligible program cost. The costs
of providing the supportive services, however, is not an eligible cost.
III. May 10, 1994 Interim Rule
HUD published an interim rule on May 10, 1994 (59 FR 24252) that
amended the SRO program application and funding award provisions by
removing some of the descriptive information and providing that this
information will appear in the annual notices of funding availability
(NOFAs). The interim rule also amended the regulations to clarify when
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) certifications must
be made. The deadline for public comments on the May 10, 1994 interim
rule was July 11, 1994. HUD has not received any comments on the rule.
Today's rule will adopt as final these amendments to the SRO program
regulations, as well as similar amendments to the Shelter Plus Care
program in Sec. 582.200 that also were included in the May 10, 1994
interim rule. (The May 10, 1994 interim rule also amended the
Supportive Housing program in Sec. 583.200; this portion of the interim
was adopted as final in a rule published on July 19, 1994 (59 FR
36886)). However, while this rule adopts these amendments as final, it
also streamlines the regulations as part of the President's regulatory
reform initiatives. This streamlining is described below, in the
``Regulatory Reform'' section of this preamble.
IV. February 14, 1996 Interim Rule
HUD published a third interim rule amending the SRO regulations on
February 14, 1996 (61 FR 5850). The February 14, 1996 interim rule
eliminated most of the remaining provisions on the required use of HA
waiting lists, in conformance with the March 15, 1993 interim rule,
described above. The February 14, 1996 interim rule also clarified the
role of HAs in helping to identify homeless individuals during the
outreach process (Sec. 882.808(a)(1)).
The February 14, 1996 interim rule also conformed the regulations
with section 1405 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992,
[[Page 48054]]
which amended the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. This
statutory amendment included a requirement for the participation of
homeless individuals in considering and making policies and decisions
regarding rehabilitation of structures receiving assistance under the
SRO program, and for the involvement of homeless individuals in the
rehabilitation and operation of these structures. The interim rule
included this requirement in Sec. 882.808(q).
The statutory amendment also provided that private nonprofit
organizations can apply directly for SRO assistance. Prior to this
amendment, HAs were the only eligible applicants under the program. To
implement this change, the interim rule added definitions of
``Applicant'' and ``Private nonprofit organization'' in Sec. 882.802.
The February 14, 1996 interim rule also conformed the program
regulations with the environmental review procedures in 24 CFR part 58.
The Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994 (Pub.
L. 103-233; approved April 11, 1994) made these procedures applicable
to the SRO program, and HUD published implementing regulations in the
Federal Register on March 13, 1995 (60 FR 13518). Under part 58, HAs
(including HAs that administer programs for nonprofit applicants) must
obtain an agreement with the responsible entity designated under part
58 for the performance of environmental reviews.
Additionally, the interim rule revised the provision on project
eligibility in Sec. 882.803(a)(2) to provide that housing is ineligible
for assistance under this program if it is receiving Federal funding
for rental assistance or operating costs under other HUD programs.
Under this revised standard, there is no restriction on the use of
other Federal funding for acquisition and rehabilitation costs. HUD has
successfully used this clearer, less restrictive standard in its
Shelter Plus Care program.
The February 14, 1996 interim rule also eliminated an obsolete date
reference in the provision for determining the maximum amount of
rehabilitation allowable in the program (Sec. 882.805(g)(1)(ii)(A) of
the interim rule) so that more recent data can be used.
Finally, the interim rule corrected an error in a final rule on
relocation and displacement requirements published in the Federal
Register on June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29326). The June 6, 1994 rule, which
conformed HUD's regulations with the requirements of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970, and its implementing regulations in 49 CFR part 24, added
Sec. 882.810 and intended to remove much of Sec. 882.803(d). However,
the most recent codification of part 882 (April 1, 1995) included all
of Sec. 882.803(d). Therefore, in order to correct the error, the
February 14, 1996 interim rule removed much of Sec. 882.803(d).
Summary of Public Comments
The deadline for submitting public comments on the February 14,
1996 interim rule was April 15, 1996. By that date, HUD received
comments from two organizations. After considering these comments,
which are described below, HUD has decided not to make any changes to
the interim rule.
Start-Up Costs
A commenter that administers this program for units owned by a
nonprofit organization remarked that start-up costs can be an obstacle,
primarily because filling all the units is difficult when the
individuals to be served by the program are transient. The commenter
stated that until a project reaches 100 percent occupancy, the owners
have to rely on the maximum allowable rents for the occupied units,
plus 80 percent of the contract rent for vacant units. The commenter
maintained that this is insufficient to cover start-up costs, and that
HUD should provide another way for nonprofit organizations to survive
early cash flow problems.
HUD Response: Under Sec. 882.808(f), if a unit that has been
rehabilitated in accordance with HUD requirements is not leased within
15 days of the effective date of the HAP contract, owners may receive
housing assistance payments in the amount of 80 percent of the contract
rent for the unit for a vacancy period not exceeding 60 days from the
effective date of the HAP contract. Maintaining this 60-day provision
is reasonable. The SRO program is designed to serve homeless
individuals, many of whom are living on the streets and in shelters.
These individuals need the permanent housing the SRO program provides
as quickly as possible. The current regulations provide assistance to
owners who need a reasonable period of time to lease the SRO units,
while simultaneously creating an incentive to lease the units at the
earliest possible date.
Elimination of Waiting Lists
Another commenter remarked on the February 14, 1996 interim rule's
removal of most of the remaining provisions for waiting lists,
requiring instead that HAs or owners engage in outreach efforts. This
commenter requested additional guidance for situations in which the
outreach efforts fail to produce eligible individuals. This commenter
also worries that discarding waiting lists could have a disparate
impact on the young, the aged, or the disabled.
HUD Response: The SRO regulations (Sec. 882.808(a)(2)) require that
if the outreach procedures the HA or owner intends to use are unlikely
to reach persons of any particular age, physical or mental handicap,
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, the HA or owner must
establish additional procedures that will ensure such persons are made
aware of the availability of the program. Additionally,
Sec. 882.808(a)(1) requires owners to notify HAs when they conduct the
outreach effort, so that the HA may provide referrals of homeless
individuals (including referrals from any waiting list maintained by
the HA). These provisions ensure that all individuals, including those
individuals listed by the commenter, are treated equally in the
program. Lastly, additional guidance on the tenant outreach process is
contained in the SRO technical assistance book.
This final rule also removes one last reference to the procedures
for establishing waiting lists, which was included in the contents of
the Administrative Plan (Sec. 882.805(b)(1)(ii)).
Participation of Homeless Individuals
Although the February 14, 1996 interim rule required that private
nonprofit applicants include at least one homeless individual or
formerly homeless individual in their decisions regarding the
rehabilitation of the SRO housing, one commenter remarked that the rule
still reflects an underrepresentation of homeless individuals in the
decisionmaking process, especially since HAs are exempt from even this
minimal requirement. The commenter expressed concern about HAs or other
entities that focus on the interests of suburbia or business, rather
than those of homeless individuals.
This commenter applauded the involvement of homeless individuals in
the rehabilitation efforts and in providing services to the occupants,
and requested HUD to encourage any such employment initiative by HAs,
especially within the SRO facility.
HUD Response: Section 1405 of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992 provides that each approved applicant that is not an HA
must provide for the participation of not less than one homeless
individual or
[[Page 48055]]
formerly homeless individual on its board of directors or other
equivalent policymaking entity to the extent that such entity considers
and makes policies and decisions regarding the rehabilitation of any
SRO housing. Thus, the statute specifically exempts HAs from this
requirement.
HUD shares the commenter's view that homeless individuals should be
involved in the SRO decisionmaking process. Thus, the 1996 Continuum of
Care application (which covers assistance under the SRO, Shelter Plus
Care, and Supportive Housing programs) requires that applicants
describe how they will involve homeless participants in project
decisionmaking and operations. Additionally, the application requires
that an applicant describe the involvement of homeless and formerly
homeless individuals in the development of a jurisdiction's continuum
of care strategy (see Fiscal Year 1996 Continuum of Care NOFA,
published on March 15, 1996 (61 FR 10866)).
Private Nonprofit Organizations as Eligible Applicants
One commenter applauded the eligibility of private nonprofit
organizations as applicants under the SRO program. The commenter
explained that nonprofit organizations may be better equipped in some
areas to serve the homeless population, because they are community-
based and may have stronger neighborhood support.
HUD Response: HUD agrees that providing for private nonprofit
applicants in the SRO program enhances the critical role these
organizations play in developing a continuum of care strategy for
assisting homeless individuals and in implementing that strategy.
V. Regulatory Reform
In response to Executive Order 12866 and President Clinton's
memorandum of March 4, 1995 to all Federal departments and agencies on
the subject of regulatory reinvention, HUD has reviewed all its
regulations to determine whether certain regulations can be eliminated,
streamlined, or consolidated with other regulations. While the interim
rules described above were successful in eliminating many obsolete
provisions, and in updating and significantly streamlining certain
requirements, HUD determined that the SRO regulations can be further
streamlined.
This final rule, in addition to adopting the previous interim rules
as final, further streamlines and clarifies the SRO regulations as
follows:
(a) It streamlines the definition of ``Homeless individual'' in
Sec. 882.802. This definition simply repeated the language contained in
section 103 of the McKinney Act. This rule also revises the definition
of ``Statement of family responsibility'', by changing the term
``family'' to ``individual.'' Since HUD can only serve eligible
individuals under this program, using the term ``individual'' will help
eliminate confusion.
(b) It removes the definition of ``Supportive services,'' which
largely consisted of a listing of items that may be considered
supportive services. HUD can more appropriately provide such guidance
in the SRO technical assistance book.
(c) It eliminates Sec. 882.803(b)(5). This provision is repetitive
of the definition of ``Single room occupancy (SRO) housing'' in
Sec. 882.802--a unit for occupancy by one person, which need not but
may contain food preparation or sanitary facilities, or both.
(d) It revises and updates Sec. 882.804 regarding other Federal
requirements. Part of this section repeats information already provided
in 24 CFR part 5. This rule will provide a cross-reference to part 5,
and it will also refer to the Americans with Disabilities Act,
compliance with which is required under the SRO program.
(e) It removes information from Sec. 882.805 regarding the
application requirements and criteria for rating applications, which
HUD will more appropriately provide in the annual NOFA.
(f) It removes the obsolete reference in Sec. 882.805(b) to the
requirement of submitting an Equal Opportunity Housing Plan. In July
1995, HUD merged the contents of this plan into the Administrative
Plan, which is also listed in Sec. 882.805(b). Therefore, while HAs
must still submit the contents of an Equal Opportunity Housing Plan as
part of the Administrative Plan, it is inaccurate for the regulations
to list it as a separate requirement.
(g) It consolidates the lengthy description of displacement and
relocation requirements in Sec. 882.810. These requirements are nearly
identical to those in Sec. 882.406. Since it is unnecessary to
duplicate these requirements within the same part of the Code of
Federal Regulations, this rule amends Sec. 882.406 so that it also
applies to the SRO program. This rule then removes the provisions of
Sec. 882.810 and replaces them with a reference to Sec. 882.406. In
this streamlining of Secs. 882.406 and 882.810, HUD is not making any
substantive changes to the requirements, but is merely eliminating
unnecessary provisions.
As part of HUD's regulatory reform efforts, HUD consolidated some
of the requirements in Sec. 882.102 (which contains definitions for the
Section 8 Certificate and Moderate Rehabilitation programs) and the
provisions in 24 CFR part 812 (which contained the definition of
``Family'' and the restrictions on assistance to noncitizens) into 24
CFR part 5. Part 5 now contains most of HUD's general program
requirements. HUD also consolidated the requirements in 24 CFR part 12
regarding accountability in the provision of HUD assistance into 24 CFR
part 4. This final rule updates the references to all these
requirements in the SRO regulations.
VI. Other Matters
Environmental Impact
This rule does not in itself have an environmental impact. This
rule merely adopts effective interim regulations as final and amends
existing regulations by streamlining provisions; it does not alter the
environmental effect of the regulations being amended. At the time of
development of regulations in part 882, subpart H, and for each of the
three interim rules discussed above, Findings of No Significant Impact
with respect to the environment were made in accordance with HUD
regulations in 24 CFR part 50 and section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The findings remain
applicable to this rule, and are available for public inspection
between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays in the Office of the Rules
Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC.
Executive Order 12606, The Family
The General Counsel, as the designated official under Executive
Order 12606, The Family, has determined that this rule does not have
potential for significant impact on family formation, maintenance, and
general well-being. This rule merely adopts effective interim
regulations as final and eliminates unnecessary provisions, and does
not change the substance of the program's regulations. Therefore, this
rule is not subject to review under the order.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a)
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has
[[Page 48056]]
determined that the policies in this rule will not have substantial
direct effects on States or their political subdivisions, or the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. This rule is limited to adopting effective interim
regulations as final and eliminating unnecessary provisions. Therefore,
the rule is not subject to review under the order.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this rule before publication and by
approving it certifies that it does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Specifically, the
rule is limited to adopting effective interim regulations as final and
eliminating unnecessary provisions.
List of Subjects
24 CFR Part 582
Homeless, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Supportive housing programs--housing and community development,
Supportive services.
24 CFR Part 882
Grant programs--housing and community development, Homeless, Lead
poisoning, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the interim
rule amending 24 CFR part 882, which was published at 58 FR 13828 on
March 15, 1993; the interim rule amending 24 CFR parts 582 and 882,
which was published at 59 FR 24252 on May 10, 1994; and the interim
rule amending 24 CFR part 882, which was published at 61 FR 5850 on
February 14, 1996; are adopted as final rules, with the following
changes:
PART 882--SECTION 8 CERTIFICATE AND MODERATE REHABILITATION
PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 882 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).
2. Section 882.406 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 882.406 Displacement, relocation, and acquisition.
(a) Minimizing displacement. (1) Consistent with the other goals
and objectives of this part, owners must assure that they have taken
all reasonable steps to minimize the displacement of persons
(households, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and farms) as a
result of a project assisted under this part. To the extent feasible,
residential tenants must be provided a reasonable opportunity to lease
and occupy a suitable, decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable dwelling
unit in the project upon its completion.
(2) Whenever a building/complex is rehabilitated, and some but not
all of the rehabilitated units will be assisted upon completion of the
rehabilitation, the relocation requirements described in this section
apply to the occupants of each rehabilitated unit, whether or not
Section 8 assistance will be provided for the unit.
(b) Temporary relocation. The following policies cover residential
tenants who will not be required to move permanently but who must
relocate temporarily for the project. Such tenants must be provided:
(1) Reimbursement for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses
incurred in connection with the temporary relocation;
(2) Appropriate advisory services, including reasonable advance
written notice of:
(i) The date and approximate duration of the temporary relocation;
(ii) The location of the suitable, decent, safe, and sanitary
dwelling to be made available for the temporary period;
(iii) The terms and conditions under which the tenant may lease and
occupy a suitable, decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling in the project
upon completion; and
(iv) The assistance required under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(c) Relocation assistance for displaced persons. A ``displaced
person'' (defined in paragraph (g) of this section) must be provided
relocation assistance at the levels described in, and in accordance
with the requirements of, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA) (42 U.S.C.
4601-4655) and implementing regulations in 49 CFR part 24. A displaced
person must be advised of his or her rights under the Fair Housing Act
(42 U.S.C. 3601-19) and, if the comparable replacement dwelling used to
establish the amount of the replacement housing payment to be provided
to a minority is located in an area of minority concentration, such
person also must be given, if possible, referrals to comparable and
suitable, decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwellings not located
in such areas.
(d) Real property acquisition requirements. The acquisition of real
property for a project is subject to the URA and the requirements
described in 49 CFR part 24, subpart B.
(e) Appeals. A person who disagrees with the HA's determination
concerning whether the person qualifies as a displaced person, or the
amount of relocation assistance for which the person is eligible, may
file a written appeal of that determination with the HA. A person who
is dissatisfied with the HA's determination on his or her appeal may
submit a written request for review of that determination to the HUD
field office.
(f) Responsibility of HA. (1) The HA must certify (i.e., provide
assurance of compliance as required by 49 CFR part 24) that it will
comply with the URA, the regulations in 49 CFR part 24, and the
requirements of this section, and must ensure such compliance
notwithstanding any third party's contractual obligation to the HA to
comply with these provisions.
(2) The cost of required relocation assistance is an eligible
project cost in the same manner and to the same extent as other project
costs. Such costs may be paid for with local public funds or funds
available from other sources. The cost of HA advisory services for
temporary relocation of tenants to be assisted under the program also
may be paid from preliminary administrative funds.
(3) The HA must maintain records in sufficient detail to
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this section. The HA must
maintain data on the racial, ethnic, gender, and disability status of
displaced persons.
(g) Definition of displaced person. (1) For purposes of this
section, the term displaced person means a person (household, business,
nonprofit organization, or farm) that moves from real property, or
moves personal property from real property, permanently, as a direct
result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a project
assisted under this part. The term displaced person includes, but may
not be limited to:
(i) A person who moves permanently from the real property after
receiving notice requiring such move, if the move occurs on or after
the date the owner submits to the HA the owner proposal that is later
approved;
(ii) A person, including a person who moves from the property
before the date the owner submits the proposal to the HA, if the HA or
HUD determines that the displacement resulted directly from
acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for the assisted project; or
(iii) A tenant-occupant of a dwelling unit who moves from the
building/
[[Page 48057]]
complex permanently after the execution of the Agreement between the
owner and the HA (or, for projects assisted under subpart H of this
part, after the ``initiation of negotiations'' (see paragraph (h) of
this section)), if the move occurs before the tenant is provided a
written notice offering him or her the opportunity to lease and occupy
a suitable, decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling in the same building/
complex, under reasonable terms and conditions, upon its completion.
Such reasonable terms and conditions must include a monthly rent and
estimated average monthly utility costs that do not exceed the greater
of:
(A) The tenant's monthly rent before the execution of the agreement
and estimated average monthly utility costs; or
(B) Thirty percent of gross household income.
(C) For projects assisted under subpart H of this part, the amount
cannot exceed the greater of the tenant's monthly rent before the
``initiation of negotiations'' and estimated average monthly utility
costs; or (if the tenant is low-income) the total tenant payment, as
determined under 24 CFR 813.107, or (if the tenant is not low-income)
30 percent of gross household income; or
(iv) A tenant-occupant of a dwelling, who is required to relocate
temporarily, but does not return to the building/complex, if either:
(A) The tenant is not offered payment for all reasonable out-of-
pocket expenses incurred in connection with the temporary relocation;
or
(B) Other conditions of the temporary relocation are not
reasonable; or
(v) A tenant-occupant of a dwelling who moves from the building/
complex permanently after he or she has been required to move to
another dwelling unit in the building/complex, if either:
(A) The tenant is not offered reimbursement for all reasonable out-
of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the move; or
(B) Other conditions of the move are not reasonable.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (g)(1) of this
section, a person does not qualify as a displaced person (and is not
eligible for relocation assistance under the URA or this section), if:
(i) The person has been evicted for serious or repeated violation
of the terms and conditions of the lease or occupancy agreement,
violation of applicable Federal, State, or local law, or other good
cause, and the HA determines that the eviction was not undertaken for
the purpose of evading the obligation to provide relocation assistance;
(ii) The person moved into the property after the submission of the
preliminary proposal (or application, if there is no preliminary
proposal), and before signing a lease and commencing occupancy,
received written notice of the project and its possible impact on the
person (e.g., the person may be displaced, temporarily relocated, or
suffer a rent increase) and the fact that the person would not qualify
as a displaced person (or for any assistance provided under this
section) as a result of the project;
(iii) The person is ineligible under 49 CFR 24.2(g)(2); or
(iv) HUD determines that the person was not displaced as a direct
result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for the project.
(3) The HA may request, at any time, HUD's determination of whether
a displacement is or would be covered by this section.
(h) Definition of initiation of negotiations. For purposes of
determining the formula for computing the replacement housing
assistance to be provided to a residential tenant displaced as a direct
result of private-owner rehabilitation or demolition of the real
property, the term initiation of negotiations means the execution of
the Agreement between the owner and the HA.
(Approved by Office of Management and Budget under OMB control
number 2506-0121).
3. Subpart H is revised to read as follows:
Subpart H--Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy
Program for Homeless Individuals
Sec.
882.801 Purpose.
882.802 Definitions.
882.803 Project eligibility and other requirements.
882.804 Other Federal requirements.
882.805 HA application process, ACC execution, and pre-
rehabilitation activities.
882.806 Agreement to enter into housing assistance payments.
882.807 Housing assistance payments contract.
882.808 Management.
882.809 Waivers.
882.810 Displacement, relocation, and acquisition.
Subpart H--Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy
Program for Homeless Individuals
Sec. 882.801 Purpose.
The purpose of the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program for
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Dwellings for Homeless Individuals is to
provide rental assistance for homeless individuals in rehabilitated SRO
housing. The Section 8 assistance is in the form of rental assistance
payments. These payments equal the rent for the unit, including
utilities, minus the portion of the rent payable by the tenant under
the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.).
Sec. 882.802 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth in 24 CFR part 5 and
Sec. 882.102 (except for the definition of ``Single Room Occupancy
(SRO) Housing'' therein) the following will apply:
Agreement to enter into housing assistance payments contract
(Agreement). A written agreement between the owner and the HA that,
upon satisfactory completion of the rehabilitation in accordance with
requirements specified in the Agreement, the HA will enter into a
housing assistance payments contract with the owner.
Applicant. A public housing agency or Indian housing authority
(collectively referred to as HAs), or a private nonprofit organization
that applies for assistance under this program. HUD will require
private nonprofit applicants to subcontract with public housing
agencies to administer their rental assistance.
Eligible individual (individual). An individual who, taking into
account the supportive services available to the individual, is capable
of independent living and is authorized for admission to assisted
housing under subparts D and E of 24 CFR part 5, and 24 CFR part 813.
Homeless individual. An individual as described in section 103 of
the McKinney Act (42 U.S.C. 11302).
McKinney Act. The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 11301 et seq.).
Moderate rehabilitation. Rehabilitation involving a minimum
expenditure of $3,000 for a unit, including its prorated share of work
to be accomplished on common areas or systems, to upgrade to decent,
safe, and sanitary condition to comply with the Housing Quality
Standards or other standards approved by HUD, from a condition below
those standards (improvements being of a modest nature and other than
routine maintenance).
Private nonprofit organization. An organization, no part of the net
earnings of which inures to the benefit of any member, founder,
contributor, or individual. The organization must:
(1) Have a voluntary board;
[[Page 48058]]
(2) Have a functioning accounting system that is operated in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or designate
an entity that will maintain a functioning accounting system for the
organization in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles; and
(3) Practice nondiscrimination in the provision of assistance.
Single room occupancy (SRO) housing. A unit for occupancy by one
person, which need not but may contain food preparation, sanitary
facilities, or both.
Statement of individual responsibility. An agreement, in the form
prescribed by HUD, between the HA and an individual to be assisted
under the program, stating the obligations and responsibilities of the
two parties.
Sec. 882.803 Project eligibility and other requirements.
(a) Eligible and ineligible properties. (1) Except as otherwise
provided in paragraph (a) of this section, housing suitable for
moderate rehabilitation is eligible for inclusion under this program.
Existing structures of various types may be appropriate for this
program, including single family houses and multifamily structures.
(2) Housing is not eligible for assistance under this program if it
is receiving Federal funding for rental assistance or operating costs
under other HUD programs.
(3) Nursing homes and related facilities such as intermediate care
or board and care homes; units within the grounds of penal,
reformatory, medical, mental, and similar public or private
institutions; and facilities providing continual psychiatric, medical,
or nursing services are not eligible for assistance under this program.
(4) No Section 8 assistance may be provided with respect to any
unit occupied by an owner.
(5) Housing located in the Coastal Barrier Resources System
designated under the Coastal Barriers Resources Act is not eligible.
(6) Single-sex facilities are allowable under this program,
provided that the HA determines that because of the physical
limitations or configuration of the facility, considerations of
personal privacy require that the facility (or parts of the facility)
be available only to members of a single sex.
(b) Housing quality standards. Section 882.404 (including its
incorporation by reference of Sec. 882.109) applies to this program,
except as follows:
(1) The housing quality standards in Secs. 882.109(i) and
882.404(c) concerning lead-based paint do not apply to this program,
since these SRO units will not house children.
(2) In addition to the performance requirements contained in
Sec. 882.109(p) concerning SRO units, a sprinkler system that protects
all major spaces, hard wired smoke detectors, and such other fire and
safety improvements as State or local law may require must be installed
in each building. The term ``major spaces'' means hallways, large
common areas, and other areas specified in local fire, building, or
safety codes.
(3) Section 882.109(q), concerning shared housing, does not apply
to this program.
(4) Section 882.404(b), concerning site and neighborhood standards,
does not apply to this program, except that Sec. 882.404(b) (1) and (2)
applies. In addition, the site must be accessible to social,
recreational, educational, commercial, and health facilities, and other
appropriate municipal facilities and services.
(c) Financing. Section 882.405 applies to this program.
(d) Relocation. Section 882.406 applies to a project assisted under
this program.
(e) HA-owned housing. (1) A unit that is owned by the HA that
administers the assistance under the ACC (including a unit owned by an
entity substantially controlled by the HA) may only be assisted if:
(i) The unit is not ineligible under Sec. 882.803(a); and
(ii) HUD approves the base and contract rent calculations prior to
execution of the Agreement and prior to execution of the HAP contract.
(2) The HA as owner is subject to the same program requirements
that apply to other owners in the program.
Sec. 882.804 Other Federal requirements.
(a) Participation in this program requires compliance with the
Federal requirements set forth in 24 CFR 5.105, and with the Americans
with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
(b) For agreements covering nine or more assisted units, the
following requirements for labor standards apply:
(1) Not less than the wages prevailing in the locality, as
determined by the Secretary of Labor under the Davis-Bacon Act (40
U.S.C. 276a through 276a-5), must be paid to all laborers and mechanics
employed in the development of the project, other than volunteers under
the conditions set out in 24 CFR part 70;
(2) The employment of laborers and mechanics is subject to the
provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 327-333); and
(3) HAs, owners, contractors, and subcontractors must comply with
all related rules, regulations, and requirements.
(c) The environmental review requirements of 24 CFR part 58,
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and related
environmental laws and authorities, apply to this program.
Sec. 882.805 HA application process, ACC execution, and pre-
rehabilitation activities.
(a) Review. When funds are made available for assistance, HUD will
publish a notice of funding availability (NOFA) in the Federal Register
in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR part 4. HUD will review
and screen applications in accordance with the guidelines, rating
criteria, and procedures published in the NOFA.
(b) ACC Execution. (1) Before execution of the annual contributions
contract (ACC), the HA must submit to the appropriate HUD field office
the following:
(i) Estimates of Required Annual Contributions, Forms HUD-52672 and
HUD-52673;
(ii) Administrative Plan, which should include:
(A) Procedures for tenant outreach;
(B) A policy governing temporary relocation; and
(C) A mechanism to monitor the provision of supportive services.
(iii) Proposed Schedule of Allowances for Tenant-Furnished
Utilities and Other Services, Form HUD-52667, with a justification of
the amounts proposed;
(iv) If applicable, proposed variations to the acceptability
criteria of the Housing Quality Standards (see Sec. 882.803(b)); and
(v) The fire and building code applicable to each structure.
(2) After HUD has approved the HA's application, the review and
comment requirements of 24 CFR part 791 have been complied with, and
the HA has submitted (and HUD has approved) the items required by
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, HUD and the HA must execute the ACC
in the form prescribed by HUD. The initial term of the ACC must be 11
years. This term allows one year to rehabilitate the units and place
them under a 10-year HAP contract. The ACC must give HUD the option to
renew the ACC for an additional 10 years.
(3) Section 882.403(a) (Maximum Total ACC Commitments) applies to
this program.
(4) Section 882.403(b) (Project account) applies to this program.
(c) Project development. Before execution of the Agreement, the HA
must:
[[Page 48059]]
(1)(i) Inspect the structure to determine the specific work items
that need to be accomplished to bring the units to be assisted up to
the Housing Quality Standards (see Sec. 882.803(b)) or other standards
approved by HUD;
(ii) Conduct a feasibility analysis, and determine whether cost-
effective energy conserving improvements can be added;
(iii) Ensure that the owner prepares the work write-ups and cost
estimates required by Sec. 882.504(f); and
(iv) Determine initial base rents and contract rents;
(2) Assure that the owner has selected a contractor in accordance
with Sec. 882.504(g);
(3) After the financing and a contractor are obtained, determine
whether the costs can be covered by initial contract rents, computed in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section; and, if a structure
contains more than 50 units to be assisted, submit the base rent and
contract rent calculations to the appropriate HUD field office for
review and approval in sufficient time for execution of the Agreement
in a timely manner;
(4) Obtain firm commitments to provide necessary supportive
services;
(5) Obtain firm commitments for other resources to be provided;
(6) Determine that the $3,000 minimum amount of work requirement
and other requirements in Sec. 882.504(c)(2) and (3) are met;
(7) Determine eligibility of current tenants, and select the units
to be assisted, in accordance with Sec. 882.504(e);
(8) Comply with the financing requirements in Sec. 882.504(i);
(9) Assure compliance with all other applicable requirements of
this subpart; and
(10) In the event that the HA determines that any structure
proposed in its application is infeasible, or the HA proposes to select
a different structure for any other reason, the HA must submit
information for the proposed alternative structure to HUD for review
and approval. HUD will rate the proposed structure in accordance with
procedures in the applicable notice of funding availability. The HA may
not proceed with processing for the proposed structure or execute an
Agreement until HUD notifies the HA that HUD has approved the proposed
alternative structure and that all requirements have been met.
(d) Initial contract rents. Section 882.408 (Initial contract
rents), including the establishment of fair market rents for SRO units
at 75 percent of the O-bedroom Moderate Rehabilitation Fair Market
Rent, applies to this program, except as follows:
(1)(i) In determining the monthly cost of a rehabilitation loan, in
accordance with Sec. 882.408(c)(2), a loan term of a least 10 years
(instead of 15 years) may be used. The exception in
Sec. 882.408(c)(2)(iii) for using the actual loan term if the total
amount of the rehabilitation is less than $15,000 continues to apply.
In addition, the cost of the rehabilitation that may be included for
the purpose of calculating the amount of the initial contract rent for
any unit must not exceed the lower of:
(A) The projected cost of rehabilitation; or
(B) The per unit cost limitation that is established by Federal
Register notice, plus the cost of the fire and safety improvements
required by Sec. 882.803(b)(2). HUD may, however, increase the
limitation in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section by an amount HUD
determines is reasonable and necessary to accommodate special local
conditions, including high construction costs or stringent fire or
building codes. HUD will publish future cost limitation changes in the
Federal Register in the Notice of Funding Availability issued each
year.
(ii) If the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) believes that high
construction costs warrant an increase in the per unit cost limitation
in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section, the HA must demonstrate to
HUD's satisfaction that a higher average per unit amount is necessary
to conduct this program, and that every appropriate step has been taken
to contain the amount of the rehabilitation within the published per
unit cost limitation established at that time, plus the cost of the
required fire and safety improvements. These higher amounts will be
determined as follows:
(A) HUD may approve a higher per unit amount up to, but not to
exceed, an amount computed by multiplying the HUD-approved High Cost
Percentage for Base Cities (used for computing FHA high cost area
adjustments) for the area, by the current published cost limitation
plus the cost of the required fire and safety improvements.
(B) HUD may, on a structure-by-structure basis, increase the level
approved in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section to up to an amount
computed by multiplying 2.4 by the current published cost limitation
plus the cost of the required fire and safety improvements.
(2) In approving changes to initial contract rents during
rehabilitation in accordance with Sec. 882.408(d), the revised initial
contract rents may not reflect an average per unit rehabilitation cost
that exceeds the limitation specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section.
(3) If the structure contains four or fewer SRO units, the Fair
Market Rent for that size structure (the Fair Market Rent for a 1-, 2-,
3-, or 4-bedroom unit, as applicable) must be used to determine the
Fair Market Rent limitation instead of using the separate Fair Market
Rent for each SRO unit. To determine the Fair Market Rent limitation
for each SRO unit, the Fair Market Rent for the structure must be
apportioned equally to each SRO unit.
(4) Contract rents must not include the costs of providing
supportive services, transportation, furniture, or other nonhousing
costs, as determined by HUD. SRO program assistance may be used for
efficiency units selected for rehabilitation under this program, but
the gross rent (contract rent plus any Utility Allowance) for these
units will be no higher than for SRO units (i.e., 75 percent of the 0-
bedroom Moderate Rehabilitation Fair Market Rent).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0131)
Sec. 882.806 Agreement to enter into housing assistance payments.
(a) Rehabilitation period. (1) Agreement. Before the owner begins
any rehabilitation, the HA must enter into an Agreement with the owner
in the form prescribed by HUD.
(2) Timely performance of work. Section 882.506(a) applies to this
program. In addition, the Agreement must provide that the work must be
completed and the contract executed within 12 months of execution of
the ACC. HUD may reduce the number of units or the amount of the annual
contribution commitment if, in HUD's determination, the HA fails to
demonstrate a good faith effort to adhere to this schedule or if other
reasons justify reducing the number of units.
(3) Inspections. Section 882.506(b) applies to this program.
(4) Changes. Section 882.506(c)(1) applies to this program.
Contract rents may not be increased except in accordance with
Secs. 882.408(d) and 882.805(d)(2).
(b) Completion of rehabilitation. (1) Notification of completion.
Section 882.507(a) applies to this program.
(2) Evidence of completion. Section 882.507(b) applies to this
program, except that Sec. 882.507(b)(2)(iv), concerning lead-based
paint requirements, does not apply.
(3) Actual cost and rehabilitation loan certifications. Section
882.507(c) applies
[[Page 48060]]
to this program, except that contract rents must be established in
accordance with Sec. 882.805(d).
(4) Review and inspections. Section 882.507(d) applies to this
program.
(5) Acceptance. Section 882.507(e) applies to this program.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2502-0367)
Sec. 882.807 Housing assistance payments contract.
(a) Time of execution of contract. Section 882.508(a) applies to
this program.
(b) Term of contract. The contract for any unit rehabilitated in
accordance with this program must be for a term of 10 years. The
contract must give the HA the option to renew the contract for an
additional 10 years.
(c) Changes in contract rents from agreement. The contract rents
may be higher or lower than those specified in the Agreement, in
accordance with Sec. 882.805(d).
(d) Unleased units. Section 882.508(c) applies to this program.
(e) Contract rents at end of rehabilitation loan term. For a
contract in which the initial contract rent was based upon a loan term
shorter than 10 years, the contract must provide for reduction of the
contract rent effective with the rent for the month following the end
of the term of the rehabilitation loan. The amount of the reduction
will be the monthly cost of amortization of the rehabilitation loan.
This reduction should result in a new contract rent equal to the base
rent plus all subsequent adjustments.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2502-0367)
Sec. 882.808 Management.
(a) Outreach to homeless individuals and appropriate organizations.
(1) The HA or the owner must undertake outreach efforts to homeless
individuals so that they may be brought into the program. The outreach
effort should include notification to emergency shelter providers and
other organizations that could provide referrals of homeless
individuals. If the owner conducts the outreach effort, the owner must
notify the HA so that it may provide referrals of homeless individuals.
(2) Additional outreach concerns. If the procedures that the HA or
owner intends to use to publicize the availability of this program are
unlikely to reach persons of any particular race, color, religion, sex,
age, national origin, or mental or physical disability who may qualify
for admission to the program, the HA or owner must establish additional
procedures that will ensure that such persons are made aware of the
availability of the program. The HA or owner must also adopt and
implement procedures to ensure that interested persons can obtain
information concerning the existence and location of services and
facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities.
(3) First priority for homeless individuals. Homeless individuals
must have the first priority for occupancy of housing rehabilitated
under this program.
(b) Individual participation. (1) Initial determination of
individual eligibility. Section 882.514(a) applies to this program.
(2) Owner selection of individuals. The owner must rent all vacant
units under contract to homeless individuals located through HA or
owner outreach efforts and determined by the HA to be eligible. The
owner is responsible for tenant selection and may refuse any
individual, provided the owner does not unlawfully discriminate. If the
owner rejects an individual, and the individual believes that the
owner's rejection was the result of unlawful discrimination, the
individual may request the assistance of the HA in resolving the issue
and may also file a complaint with HUD's Office of Fair Housing and
Equal Opportunity in accordance with 24 CFR 103.25. If the individual
requests the assistance of the HA, and if the HA cannot resolve the
complaint promptly, the HA should advise the individual that he or she
may file a complaint with HUD, and provide the individual with the
address of the nearest HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity.
(3) Briefing of individuals. Section 882.514(d) applies to this
program, except that Sec. 882.514(d)(1)(vi) does not apply.
(4) Continued participation of individual when contract is
terminated. Section 882.514(e) applies to this program, except that the
HA may issue a Housing Voucher instead of a Certificate.
(5) Individuals determined by the HA to be ineligible. Section
882.514(f) applies to this program. In addition, individuals are not
precluded from exercising other rights if they believe they have been
discriminated against on the basis of age.
(c) Lease. (1) Contents of lease. Section 882.504(j) applies to
this program. In addition, the lease must limit occupancy to one
eligible individual.
(2) Term of lease. Section 882.403(d) applies to this program.
(d) Security and utility deposits. Section 882.112 applies to this
program.
(e) Rent adjustments. Section 882.410 applies to this program.
(f) Payments for vacancies. Section 882.411 applies to this
program.
(g) Subcontracting of owner services. Section 882.412 applies to
this program.
(h) Responsibility of the individual. Section 882.413 applies to
this program.
(i) Reexamination of individual income. (1) Regular reexaminations.
The HA must reexamine the income of all individuals at least once every
12 months. After consultation with the individual and upon verification
of the information, the HA must make appropriate adjustments in the
Total Tenant Payment in accordance with 24 CFR part 813, and verify
that only one individual is occupying the unit. The HA must adjust
Tenant Rent and the Housing Assistance Payment to reflect any change in
Total Tenant Payment. At each regular reexamination, the HA must follow
the requirements of 24 CFR part 5, subpart E concerning verification of
immigration status of any new family member.
(2) Interim reexaminations. The individual must supply such
certification, release, information, or documentation as the HA or HUD
determines to be necessary, including submissions required for interim
reexaminations of individual income and determinations as to whether
only one person is occupying the unit. In addition, the second and
third sentences of Sec. 882.515(b) apply. At any interim reexamination
when there is a new family member, the HA must follow the requirements
of 24 CFR part 5, subpart E concerning obtaining and processing
evidence of citizenship or eligible immigration status of the new
family member.
(3) Continuation of Housing Assistance Payments. Section 882.515(c)
applies to this program.
(j) Overcrowded units. If the HA determines that anyone other than,
or in addition to, the eligible individual is occupying an SRO unit
assisted under this program, the HA must take all necessary action, as
soon as reasonably feasible, to ensure that the unit is occupied by
only one eligible individual.
(k) Adjustment of utility allowance. Section 882.510 applies to
this program.
(l) Termination of tenancy. Section 882.511 applies to this
program. For provisions requiring termination of assistance when the HA
determines that a family member is not a U.S. citizen or does not have
eligible immigration status, see 24 CFR part 5, subpart E for
provisions concerning certain assistance
[[Page 48061]]
for mixed families (families whose members include those with eligible
immigration status, and those without eligible immigration status) in
lieu of termination of assistance, or for provisions concerning
deferral of termination of assistance.
(m) Reduction of number of units covered by contract. Section
882.512 applies to this program.
(n) Maintenance, operation, and inspections. Section 882.516
applies to this program.
(o) HUD review of contract compliance. Section 882.217 applies to
this program.
(p) Records and reports. Each recipient of assistance under this
subpart must keep any records and make any reports that HUD may require
within the timeframe required.
(q) Participation of homeless individuals. (1) Each approved
applicant receiving assistance under this program, except HAs, must
provide for the participation of not less than one homeless individual
or formerly homeless individual on the board of directors or other
equivalent policymaking entity of such applicant, to the extent that
the entity considers and makes policies and decisions regarding the
rehabilitation of any housing with assistance under this subpart. This
requirement is waived if the applicant is unable to meet this
requirement and presents a plan that HUD approves to consult with
homeless or formerly homeless individuals in considering and making
such policies and decisions.
(2) To the maximum extent practicable, each approved applicant must
involve homeless individuals and families, through employment,
volunteer services, or otherwise, in rehabilitating and operating
facilities assisted under this subpart, and in providing services for
occupants of such facilities.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2506-0131)
Sec. 882.809 Waivers.
Section 5.405(b) of this title does not apply to this program.
Sec. 882.810 Displacement, relocation, and acquisition.
Section 882.406 applies to this program.
Dated: September 3, 1996.
Andrew M. Cuomo,
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
[FR Doc. 96-23166 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23087 Consolidated ReturnsLimitations on the Use of Certain Losses and Deductions; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47821-47822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23087]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 8677]
RIN 1545-AU35
Consolidated Returns--Limitations on the Use of Certain Losses
and Deductions; Correction
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to the final and temporary regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final and temporary
regulations (TD 8677) which were published in the Federal Register on
Thursday, June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33321). The final and temporary
regulations relate to the deductions and losses of members and also to
the carryover and carryback of losses to consolidated and separate
return years and to the built-in deduction rules.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Friedel (202) 622-7550 (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of these
corrections are under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 8677) contain
errors which may prove to be misleading and are in need of
clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of the final and temporary regulations
(TD 8677) which are the subject of FR Doc. 96-15823 is corrected as
follows:
PART 1--[CORRECTED]
1. On page 33322, column 3, under the authority citation for Part
1, the entry ``Section 1.1502-1T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502'' is
corrected to read ``Section 1.1502-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C.
1502''.
2. On page 33322, column 3, under the authority citation for Part
1, the
[[Page 47822]]
entry ``Section 1.1502-79T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502'' is
corrected to read ``Section 1.1502-79 also issued under 26 U.S.C.
1502''.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-23087 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23085 Modifications of Debt Instruments; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23085]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 8675]
RIN 1545-AR04
Modifications of Debt Instruments; Correction
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD
8675) which were published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, June
26, 1996 (61 FR 32926). The final regulations relate to the
modification of debt instruments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 24, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Kelly, (202) 622-3930 (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are the subject of this correction are
under section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the final regulations (TD 8675) contain an error
which may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 8675)
which are the subject of FR Doc. 96-15830 is corrected as follows:
Sec. 1.1001-3 [Corrected]
On page 32935, column 3, Sec. 1.1001-3(g), paragraph (iv) of
Example 5., line 8, the language ``(e)(4)(i)(E) of this section and is
a significant'' is corrected to read ``(e)(4)(i)(C) of this section and
is a significant''.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-23085 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23040 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Consolidation of Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23040]
[[Page 47821]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 902
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 960313071-6237-03; I.D. 050996D]
RIN 0648-AI20
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Consolidation of Regulations
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS adopts as final with one correction an interim final rule
published July 3, 1996, which consolidated 11 CFR parts into one new
CFR part and amended references to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
information-collection requirements. The new part contains regulations
implementing management measures contained in the fishery management
plans (FMPs) for the following domestic fisheries in the Caribbean,
Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Caribbean coral, Caribbean reef
fish, Caribbean spiny lobster, Gulf red drum, Gulf reef fish, Gulf
shrimp, Gulf and South Atlantic coastal migratory pelagics, Gulf and
South Atlantic corals, South Atlantic red drum, South Atlantic snapper-
grouper, and South Atlantic shrimp. The intended effect of this final
rule is to make the regulations more concise, better organized, more
uniform among fisheries, and thereby easier for the public to use.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Perry Allen, 813-570-5326.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Domestic fisheries in the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic are managed under FMPs prepared by the
Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and/or South Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils under the authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). As part of the President's
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, the interim final rule (61 FR 34930,
July 3, 1996) consolidated 11 sets of regulations into one new CFR
part, 50 CFR part 622 and made concomitant amendments to the references
for PRA requirements. The background and rationale for this action and
explanations of changes that were made to improve uniformity among the
regulations were included in the interim final rule and are not
repeated here.
The interim final rule provided a 30-day comment period for the
public to identify any significant, unforeseen regulatory effects. No
comments were received. Accordingly, that part of the interim final
rule that adds part 622 to 50 CFR Chapter VI is adopted as final
without change. That part of the interim final rule that amends the
references to the PRA information-collection requirements is adopted as
final with one correction. Specifically, the control number for the
OMB-approved dealer recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 0648-
0013, was omitted in the listing of OMB control numbers where it
applies to 50 CFR 622.15. This final rule corrects that omission.
Classification
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 902
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: September 4, 1996.
N. Foster,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the interim final rule
amending 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CRF part 622 that was published at 61
FR 34930 on July 3, 1996, is adopted as final with the following
change.
15 CFR Chapter IX
PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Sec. 902.1 [Corrected]
2. In Sec. 902.1, paragraph (b) table, in the entries for 50 CFR,
in the right column, corresponding to entry 622.15 in the left column,
the entry ``-0262.'' is corrected to read ``-0013 and -0262.''.
[FR Doc. 96-23040 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23035 Immigration and Nationality Forms
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47799-47801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23035]
========================================================================
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. 177 / Wednesday, September 11, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 47799]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
8 CFR Parts 282, 299 and 499
[INS No. 1638-95]
RIN 1115-AD58
Immigration and Nationality Forms
AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the Immigration and Naturalization Service's
(Service) regulations by updating the listing of forms currently in use
by the Service. This revision is necessary to ensure that only current
editions of forms listed in the regulations are used and the public has
access to correct information concerning public use forms that have
been approved for use by the Office of Management and Budget, and forms
available for purchase from the Superintendent of Documents. This rule
also provides approved Service standards which, when followed, will
allow the public to electronically generate Service forms.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard A. Sloan, Director, Policy Directives and Instructions Branch,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 ``I'' Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20536, Telephone: (202) 514-3291.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 17, 1994, the Service published an
interim rule with request for comments in the Federal Register at 58 FR
25555-25561. The interim rule:
(1) Revised Secs. 299.1 and 499.1 by updating the listing of the
prescribed forms to be used in compliance with the provisions of Title
8 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
(2) Revised Sec. 299.3 by updating the listing of forms that could
be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, their stock numbers,
and prices;
(3) Provided standards in Sec. 299.4 which, when followed, would
allow the public to take advantage of the automated technology
available in the marketplace to electronically generate Service forms
that would be deemed acceptable for processing; and
(4) Revised Sec. 299.5 to reflect current public use forms and
their respective Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers.
The comment period for the interim rule ended on July 18, 1994. The
Service received comments from five commenters. The following is a
discussion of those comments along with the Service's response.
Acceptance of Computer-Generated Form I-20
A majority of the commenters expressed enthusiastic appreciation
for the opportunity to utilize laser printed I-20 Forms. One commenter
stated that, during peak periods, the computerized forms saved 15 staff
hours of processing time per week, and another commenter stated that
the productivity of school office staff increased dramatically.
Still another commenter offered congratulations to the Service for
addressing the needs and desires of those using our forms and could
find nothing to change in the interim rule.
The Service is encouraged by these comments and will continue to
try to accommodate the needs of the public while still maintaining our
proposed standards.
Non-Acceptance of Computer-Generated Form I-20
One commenter urged the Service to reconsider its utilization of
computer-generated Form I-20. The commenter opined that the use of such
documents encouraged fraud and suspicion.
The Service appreciates these comments and feels it necessary to
reassure this commenter that the computer-generated Form I-20 will be
processed by officers of the Service, who are highly trained in
detecting fraudulent documents. However, to alleviate these fears, the
Service has issued policy guidance to the field which states that those
private entities that electronically generate Form I-20 in single page
format rather than double sided format, will be required to include the
student's name, school, and date of birth in a shaded box on the top of
page 4, using the same type size and font style as the body of the
form. This policy has been included in Sec. 299.4(b)(1) of this final
rule and will continue to allow the private sector to electronically
produce the Form I-20 while providing the latest safeguards against
fraudulent Form I-20's being submitted.
Other Topics Addressed
Another commenter was very complimentary about the entire change in
policy concerning the acceptance of electronically generated forms and
suggested that the Service revise the language contained in
Sec. 299.4(d) concerning the use of laser printers or near-letter-
quality printers. Specifically, this commenter felt that the Service
needed to address future changes in printer technologies. The Service
concurs with this suggestion and is revising the language in
Sec. 299.4(d) to allow for the use of electronic printers that provide
near-letter-quality documents to generate electronic forms.
Final Rule
In addition to the changes being incorporated into Sec. 299.4
(b)(1) and (d) of this final rule, the Service is also:
(1) Removing 8 CFR part 282 which includes certain language that is
already contained in section 282 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
and which will be included in 8 CFR 299.3;
(2) Amending Sec. 299.3 by updating the listing of forms that could
be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, the related stock
numbers, and prices;
(3) Amending Secs. 299.1 and 299.4 by updating the listing of the
prescribed forms to be used in compliance with the provisions of Title
8 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
(4) Amending Sec. 299.4(b)(3) and (e) to remove the office title
``Records Systems Division''; and by
(5) Amending Sec. 299.5 to reflect current public use forms and
their respective OMB control numbers.
The new actions to remove 8 CFR part 282 and amending
Sec. 299.4(b)(3) and (e) as described above are based on the ``good
cause'' exception found at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). These actions will not
affect the public and are being done purely for administrative
purposes.
[[Page 47800]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this regulation and, by
approving it, certifies that this rule does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is
primarily administrative in nature and merely updates the existing
forms listings currently contained in Title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. In addition, this rule is intended to benefit small
entities by providing them with specific standards which, if followed,
will enable them to take advantage of existing computer technology
available in the marketplace to electronically reproduce Service forms.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not considered by the Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, to be a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),
Regulatory Planning and Review, and the Office of Management and Budget
has waived its review process under section 6(a)(3)(A).
Executive Order 12612
The regulation proposed 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 rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects
8 CFR Part 282
Forms, Immigration.
8 CFR Part 299
Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
8 CFR Part 499
Citizenship and naturalization, Nationality forms.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 8 CFR parts 299 and 499
which was published at 59 FR 25555-25561 on May 17, 1994, is adopted as
a final rule with the following changes:
PART 282--FORMS FOR SALE TO PUBLIC
1. Part 282 is removed.
PART 299--IMMIGRATION FORMS
2. The authority citation for part 299 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103; 8 CFR part 2.
3. Section 299.1 is amended by: a. Removing the entries for Forms
``I-328'' and ``I-591''; and by b. Revising the entries for Forms ``FD-
258'', ``G-639'', ``I-102'', ``I-104'', ``I-246'', ``I-551'', ``I-
586'', ``I-589'', ``I-602'', ``I-607'', ``I-688'', ``I-688B'', ``I-
765'', and ``I-775'' to read as follows:
Sec. 299.1 Prescribed forms.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edition
Form No. date Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
FD-258...................... 12-29-82 Applicant Fingerprint Card.
* * * * *
G-639....................... 03-21-94 Freedom of Information Act/
Privacy Act Request.
* * * * *
I-102....................... 06-13-95 Application for Replacement/
Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival/
Departure Document.
I-104....................... 11-01-84 Alien Address Report Card.
* * * * *
I-246....................... 01-15-86 Application for Stay of
Deportation.
* * * * *
I-551....................... 01-31-77 Alien Registration Receipt
Card.
* * * * *
I-586....................... 04-30-77 Nonresident Alien Border
Crossing Card.
I-589....................... 11-16-94 Application for Asylum and
for Withholding of
Deportation.
* * * * *
I-602....................... 10-01-85 Application by Refugee for
Waiver on Grounds of
Excludability.
I-607....................... 02-01-72 Order Re Waiver of
Excludability Pursuant to
Section 212(h), (i) and
Permission to Reapply.
* * * * *
I-688....................... 01-01-89 Temporary Resident Card.
* * * * *
I-688B...................... 08-07-93 Employment Authorization
Card.
* * * * *
I-765....................... 04-25-95 Application for Employment
Authorization.
I-775....................... 05-12-94 Visa Waiver Pilot Program
Agreement.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The introductory text for Sec. 299.3 is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 299.3 Forms available from Superintendent of Documents.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service forms listed in this
section may be obtained, upon prepayment, from the Superintendent of
Documents, who is authorized to print these forms for sale to the
public. Prices are set by the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, and are subject to change without notice. A small
supply of these forms shall be set aside by immigration officers for
free distribution and official use.
* * * * *
Sec. 299.3 [Amended]
5. Section 299.3 is amended by removing the entries for Forms ``I-
102'', ``I-526'', ``I-600'' and ``I-600A''.
6. Section 299.3 is amended by adding the entries for Forms ``I-
765'' and ``I-817'' in proper numerical sequence, to the listing of
forms, to read as follows:
Sec. 299.3 Forms available from the Superintendent of Documents.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPO stock No. (S/ Price per
Form No. N) 100/pd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
I-765..................................... 027-002-00441-8 49.00
I-817..................................... 027-002-00415-9 36.00
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Section 299.3 is amended by revising the entries for forms ``I-
20MN'', ``I-94 (English)'', ``I-129F'', and ``I-693'', to read as
follows:
Sec. 299.3 Forms available from Superintendent of Documents.
* * * * *
[[Page 47801]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPO stock No. (S/ Price per
Form No. N) 100/pd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
I-20MN.................................... 027-002-00403-5 26.00
* * * * *
I-94(English)............................. 027-002-00318-7 11.00
* * * * *
I-129F.................................... 027-002-00389-6 26.00
* * * * *
I-693..................................... 027-002-00355-1 43.00
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
8. Section 299.4 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text in paragraph (b);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
c. Revising paragraph (b)(3);
d. Revising paragraph (d); and by
e. Revising paragraph (e), to read as follows:
Sec. 299.4 Reproduction of Public Use Forms by public and private
entities.
* * * * *
(b) Requirements for electronic generation. Public or private
entities may electronically generate forms required for applying for a
specific benefit, in compliance with the immigration and naturalization
regulations, at their own expense. This includes forms that have been
made available for purchase by the Superintendent of Documents, as
listed in Sec. 299.3 provided that each form satisfies the following
requirements:
(1) An electronic reproduction must be complete, containing all
questions which appear on the official form. The wording and
punctuation of all data elements and identifying information must match
exactly. No data elements may be added or deleted. The sequence and
format for each item on the form must be replicated to mirror the
authorized agency form. Each item must be printed on the same page in
the same location. Likewise, multiple-part sets may be printed as
single sheets provided that the destination of the carbon copy is
clearly identified on the bottom of the form. Private entities must
reproduce forms on the same colored paper that is used on the official
form. In the case of the Form I-20 A-B/I-20ID, Certificate of
Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (F-1) Student Status--For Academic and
Language Students, private entities may generate this form in single-
page format rather than double-sided format, provided that the
student's name, school, and date of birth is printed in a shaded box on
the top of page 4 of the form, using the same type size and font style
as the body of the form.
* * * * *
(3) The final form must be approved for use by the Director, Policy
Directives and Instructions Branch. The form should be mailed to the
address listed in paragraph (e) of this section for approval.
* * * * *
(d) Electronic printers that provide for near-letter-quality
documents should be used to generate electronic forms. Dot matrix
printers that are only capable of producing draft quality documents
should not be used for form generation, but may be used for the entry
of data in a preprinted form where appropriate.
(e) Any form with poor print quality or other defect which renders
it illegible, difficult to read, or displays added or missing data
elements, will be rejected by the Service. Any problems regarding the
acceptability of a specific electronic version of a particular Service
form may be brought to the attention of the Director, Policy Directives
and Instructions Branch, 425 ``I'' Street, NW., Room 5307, Washington,
DC 20536, telephone number (202) 514-3048.
Sec. 299.5 [Amended]
9. Section 299.5 is amended by removing the entries for Forms ``I-
591'' and ``G-897''.
10. Section 299.5 is amended by:
a. Adding the entries for Forms ``I-847'' and ``I-855'', to the
listing of forms, in proper numerical sequence; and by
b. Adding the entries for the ``Telephone Verification System (TVS)
Pilot Phase II'' and the ``Generic Clearance of Customer Service
Surveys'' immediately after the last entry in the second column, ``INS
form title'' to read as follows:
Sec. 229.5 Display of control numbers.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently
assigned
INS form No. INS form title OMB control
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
I-847....................... Report of Complaint.......... 1115-0191
* * * * *
I-855....................... ABC Change of Address Form... 1115-0197
* * * * *
Telephone Verification System 1115-0192
(TVS) Pilot Phase II.
Generic Clearance of Customer 1115-0195
Service Surveys.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 499--NATIONALITY FORMS
11. The authority citation for part 499 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 CFR part 2.
12. Section 499.1 is amended by revising the entries for Forms ``M-
288'', ``M-289'', ``M-290'', ``M-291'', ``N-4'', ``N-565'', and ``N-
643'' to read as follows:
Sec. 499.1 Prescribed forms.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edition
Form No. date Title and description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M-288....................... 12-30-87 United States History 1600-
1987, Level II.
M-289....................... 12-31-87 United States History 1600-
1987, Level I.
M-290....................... 01-01-90 U.S. Government Structure,
Level II.
M-291....................... 12-31-87 U.S. Government Structure,
Level I.
* * * * *
N-4......................... 12-14-93 Monthly Report--
Naturalization Papers
Forwarded.
* * * * *
N-565....................... 11-18-93 Application for Replacement
Naturalization/Citizenship
Document.
* * * * *
N-643....................... 05-10-93 Application for Certificate
of Citizenship on Behalf of
an Adopted Child.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: August 7, 1996.
Doris Meissner,
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
[FR Doc. 96-23035 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22949 Consumer Information Regulations; Fees for Course Monitoring Tires
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47825-47826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22949]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 575
[Docket No. 96-88; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG54
Consumer Information Regulations; Fees for Course Monitoring
Tires
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends NHTSA's consumer information regulations on
uniform tire quality grading by reducing the fee for the purchase of
treadwear course monitoring tires that are sold by the agency at its
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility in San Angelo, Texas. The
purchase fee has been reduced to eliminate charges for testing the
tires to establish their base course wear rate. This testing will no
longer be performed by NHTSA in view of the agency's decision to fix
the base course wear rate at its current value for all course
monitoring tires that are sold in the future.
DATES: The amendment established by this final rule will become
effective on October 11, 1996.
Any petitions for reconsideration must be received by NHTSA not
later than October 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
and notice numbers above and be submitted to: Docket Section, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590. Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, (202-366-2830).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a final rule published on August 2, 1995
at 60 FR 39269, NHTSA established fees for the purchase of treadwear
course monitoring tires and for the use of the traction skid pads at
the agency's Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility in San Angelo,
Texas. The rule noted that under uniform tire quality grading (UTQG)
standards at 49 CFR 575.104, tires must be labeled with information
indicating their relative performance in the areas of treadwear,
traction, and temperature resistance. For the purpose of evaluating
treadwear performance, NHTSA established a 400 mile roadway course near
San Angelo, Texas, which is designed to produce treadwear rates that
are generally representative of those encountered by tires in public
use. Under the UTQG standards, the projected mileage obtained for
tested tires must be corrected to account for environmental and other
variations that occur during testing on the course. This is done by
comparing the performance of the tested tires to that of course
monitoring tires run in the same convoy. The course monitoring tires
are specially manufactured under controlled conditions so that they can
be used as a grading standard, and are made available by NHTSA for
purchase at the San Angelo test facility.
The rule further noted that an audit conducted by the Department of
Transportation's Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded that NHTSA
was not recovering the full cost of the course monitoring tires that it
sells at San Angelo, contrary to the
[[Page 47826]]
requirements of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25,
which establishes Federal policy regarding fees assessed for Government
services and for the sale or use of Government goods or resources. To
address these deficiencies, the rule established $379.00 as the fee for
each course monitoring tire that NHTSA sells at San Angelo. This amount
was the minimum necessary for NHTSA to recover the direct and indirect
costs that it incurs in furnishing these tires. It was derived by
performing the following calculation for the 700 course monitoring
tires that are purchased annually by NHTSA:
Purchase price of course monitoring tires.................... $175,000
General facility costs relating to tires..................... 3,400
Warehouse storage fees....................................... 24,000
Salaries relating to tires................................... 29,825
Testing fees to establish base course wear rate for tires.... 32,800
----------
Total.................................................. $265,025
Number of tires purchased annually=700
$265,025700=$378.61 cost per tire.
Through a final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, NHTSA has amended the UTQG Standards to revise
treadwear test procedures so that the base course wear rate of course
monitoring tires is fixed at its current value of 1.34 mils per
thousand miles. As a result of this amendment, NHTSA will no longer
perform testing to establish a base course wear rate for newly procured
batches of course monitoring tires.
So that the government recovers no more than the costs that it
actually incurs in providing these tires, testing expenses are being
eliminated from the formula used to calculate the tires' purchase
price. As shown in the above calculation, testing expenses to establish
a base course wear rate amount to $32,800 for the 700 tires that are
purchased annually by NHTSA. By eliminating these expenses, the price
that is charged for each tire may be reduced by $47.00
($32,800700=$46.85). NHTSA is adding one dollar to the purchase
price of each tire to cover shipping expenses it incurs for the
delivery of these tires to the San Angelo test facility. These expenses
amount to $880.00 for each lot of 700 tires that the agency receives
($880.00700=$1.26). With these adjustments, the purchase price
for each course monitoring tire that NHTSA sells at San Angelo has now
been set at $333.00 ($379.00-$47.00+$1.00=$333.00).
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking action was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has
analyzed this rulemaking action and determined that it is not
``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the amendment resulting from this rulemaking
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, the agency has not prepared a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
The agency believes that motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and
tire brand owners typically do not qualify as small entities. This
amendment may affect small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental units to the extent that these entities purchase vehicles
and tires.
However, because this amendment is reducing the fee that NHTSA
charges for course monitoring tires, it can only have a beneficial
effect on these entities.
3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No State laws will be
affected.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has considered the environmental implications of this
rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and determined that it will not significantly affect the human
environment.
5. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, P.L. 96-
511, the agency notes that there are no information collection
requirements associated with this rulemaking action.
6. Civil Justice Reform
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section
103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C.
30111), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect,
a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the
same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard. Section 105 of the Act (49 U.S.C. 30161) sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
7. Notice and Comment
NHTSA finds that prior notice and opportunity for comment are
unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) because affected members of the
public can only benefit from the fee reduction that is accomplished by
this amendment.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 575
Consumer protection, Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, Sec. 575.104, Uniform tire
quality grading standards, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations at Part 575, is amended as follows:
PART 575--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 575 will continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, and 30123; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50
2. Appendix D to Sec. 575.104 is amended by revising paragraph 1 to
read as follows:
Sec. 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading standards.
* * * * *
Appendix D--User Fees
1. Course Monitoring Tires: A fee of $333.00 will be assessed for
each course monitoring tire purchased from NHTSA at Goodfellow Air
Force Base, San Angelo, Texas. This fee is based upon the direct and
indirect costs attributable to: (a) the purchase of course monitoring
tires by NHTSA, (b) a pro rata allocation of salaries and general
facility costs associated with maintenance of the tires, and (c)
warehouse storage fees for the tires.
* * * * *
Issued on: August 6, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-22949 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22922 Airworthiness Directives; Allison 250 Series Turbine Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47802-47804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22922]
[[Page 47802]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-72; Amendment 39-9749; AD 96-19-01]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Allison 250 Series Turbine Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is applicable to Allison 250 series turbine engines. This action
requires initial and repetitive visual inspections of all engine
filters for metal particles resulting from premature wear of two
bearings produced under Parts Manufacture Approval (PMA) by Superior
Air Parts, Inc. In addition, this AD requires replacement of those
bearings with bearings that incorporate improved retainers, which
constitutes terminating action to the inspection requirements of this
AD. This amendment is prompted by a report of a failure during a ground
test of an engine with bearings manufactured by Superior Air Parts,
Inc. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent bearing
failure due to bearing separator instability, which can result in
subsequent turbine and engine failure.
DATES: Effective September 26, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of September 26, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before November 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-72, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may also be
submitted to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet address:
``[email protected]''. All comments must contain the
Docket No. in the subject line of the comment.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from
Superior Air Parts, Inc., 14280 Gillis Rd., Dallas, TX 75244-3792;
telephone (800) 487-4884, fax (214) 490-8471. This information may be
examined at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite
700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard D. Karanian, Aerospace
Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-
5195, fax (817) 222-5136.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
received a report of a chip detector light on an Allison 250 turboshaft
engine during a helicopter flight. The pilot returned to base and the
ground crew commenced with an inspection to determine the cause. Metal
particles, including silver flakes, were discovered on the chip
detector; however, a preliminary inspection failed to determine where
the metal particles originated. In accordance with the applicable
service instruction, an engine ground run was initiated. Approximately
two hours into the ground run, the engine began to vibrate. The ground
run was discontinued and the engine was disassembled. An inspection
revealed that the No. 5 bearing, part number (P/N) A6871505, produced
under Parts Manufacture Approval (PMA) by Superior Air Parts, Inc., had
failed. In addition, the FAA has received reports of 5 more incidents
where metal particles were found, resulting in the removal of four No.
5 bearings, P/N A6871505, and one No. 8 bearing, P/N A23007152. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in bearing failure due to
bearing separator instability, which can result in subsequent turbine
and engine failure.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of
Superior Turbine Service Bulletin (SB) No. T95-SB001, Revision A, dated
September 29, 1995, and SB No. T95-SB002, Revision A, dated September
29, 1995, that describe procedures for initial and repetitive visual
inspections of all engine filters for metal particles resulting from
wear of bearing ball retainer.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other Allison 250 series turbine engines of the
same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent bearing failure.
This AD requires an initial visual inspection within 20 days after the
effective date of this AD, followed by repetitive inspections at
intervals not to exceed 25 hours time in service (TIS) since last
inspection for the first 300 hours TIS of engine operation. After
accumulating greater than 300 hours TIS of engine operation, the
inspections must be accomplished at intervals not to exceed 100 hours
TIS since last inspection. The repetitive inspections must be performed
until engine overhaul, or repair or maintenance when disassembly
permits replacement of the bearing, whichever occurs first. At that
time, remove the No. 5 bearing, Superior P/N A6871505, and replace with
a serviceable No. 5 bearing, Allison P/N 6871505; and remove the No. 8
bearing, Superior P/N A23007152, and replace with a serviceable No. 8
bearing, Allison P/N 23031478. The Allison bearings incorporate
improved retainers, and Superior Air Parts, Inc. no longer manufactures
replacement bearings. Replacement with these serviceable bearings
constitutes terminating action to the inspection requirements of this
AD. The actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the
SBs described previously.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
[[Page 47803]]
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-ANE-72.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this
action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined
that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will
be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may
be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-19-01 Allison: Amendment 39-9749. Docket 95-ANE-72.
Applicability: Allison Model 250-B15G,-B17F, -B17F/1, -B17F/2, -
C20, -C20B, -C20F, -C20J, -C20S, -C20W, -R, -C20R/1, -C20R/2, -C20R/
4, -C28B, -C28C, -C30, -C30P, -C30M, and -C30G turbine engines, with
Superior Air Parts, Inc. Parts Manufacture Approval (PMA) bearings,
Part Number (P/N) A6871505 and P/N A23007152, installed. These
engines are installed on but not limited to the following aircraft:
Aerospace Technologies of Australia PTY Ltd. N-22 and N-24; Agusta
S.p.A A109 series, SF600 series; Beech Aircraft Corp. A36 and T34
(Tradewind Turbines conversion); Bell Helicopter Textron Model 47
(Soloy Conversion), OH58 series, 206 series, 230, 430; Cessna 206
and 207 (Soloy Conversions); Enstrom Helicopter Corp. TH28, 480;
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH BO105 series; Eurocopter France AS355
series; Flugzeugwerke Altenrheim AG (FFA) AS202 series; Hiller
Aviation UH12 series (Soloy Conversions); Maule Aerospace Technology
Corp. MX-7 series; McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. OH6 series, 500
series, MD500 series, MD520N series, MD530 series; Partenavia
Costruzioni Aeronautiche S.p.A P68 series; Pilatus Britten-Norman
Ltd. BN-2T; and Sikorsky Aircraft Division S76 series.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine
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 engines 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 bearing failure due to bearing separator instability,
which can result in subsequent turbine and engine failure,
accomplish the following:
(a) For engines with No. 5 bearings, Superior P/N A6871505,
installed, accomplish the following:
(1) Within 20 days after the effective date of this AD, perform
an initial visual inspection of all engine filters for metal
particles in accordance with Superior Turbine Service Bulletin (SB)
No. T95-SB001, Revision A, dated September 29, 1995. If any engine
filter contains metal particles that exceed the return to service
criteria described in that SB, prior to further flight, remove the
No. 5 bearing, Superior P/N A6871505, and replace with a serviceable
No. 5 bearing, Allison P/N 6871505.
(2) Thereafter, for engines with No. 5 bearing, Superior P/N
A6871505, installed, perform visual inspections of all engine
filters for metal particles in accordance with Superior Turbine SB
No. T95-SB002, dated September 29, 1995, and, if necessary, replace
with serviceable parts, at intervals not to exceed the following:
(i) For engines with 300 hours or less TIS since overhaul, or
TSN if never overhauled, perform inspections at intervals not to
exceed 25 hours TIS since last inspection.
(ii) For engines with more than 300 hours TIS since new or
overhaul, whichever is lesser, perform inspections at intervals not
to exceed 100 hours TIS since last inspection.
(b) For engines with No. 8 bearings, Superior P/N A23007152,
installed, accomplish the following:
(1) Within 20 days after the effective date of this AD, perform
an initial visual inspection of all engine filters for metal
particles in accordance with Superior Turbine SB No. T95-SB002,
Revision A, dated September 29, 1995. If any engine filter contains
metal particles that exceed the return to service criteria described
in that SB, prior to further flight, remove the No. 8 bearing,
Superior P/N A23007152, and replace with a serviceable No. 8
bearing, Allison P/N 23031478.
(2) Thereafter, for engines with No. 8 bearing, Superior P/N
A23007152, installed, perform visual inspections of all engine
filters for metal particles in accordance with Superior Turbine SB
No. T95-SB002, dated September 29, 1995, and, if necessary, replace
with serviceable parts, at intervals not to exceed the following:
(i) For engines with 300 hours or less TIS since overhaul, or
TSN if never overhauled, perform inspections at intervals not to
exceed 25 hours TIS since last inspection.
(ii) For engines with more than 300 hours TIS since new or
overhaul, whichever is lesser, perform inspections at intervals not
to exceed 100 hours TIS since last inspection.
(c) At the next engine overhaul, or repair or maintenance when
disassembly permits replacement of the bearing, after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, remove the No. 5 bearing,
Superior P/N A6871505, and replace with a serviceable No. 5 bearing,
Allison P/N 6871505; and remove the No. 8 bearing, Superior P/N
A23007152, and replace with a serviceable No. 8 bearing, Allison P/N
23031478.
(d) Installation of serviceable bearings in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this AD, constitutes terminating action to the
inspection requirements of this AD.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Special Certification Office. The
request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Special Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Special Certification Office.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199
[[Page 47804]]
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to
operate the aircraft to a location where the requirements of this AD
can be accomplished.
(g) The actions required by this AD shall be done in accordance
with the following Superior Turbine service documents:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No. Pages Revision Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB No. T95-SB001......................... 1-2 A Sept. 29, 1995.
Total pages: 2.
SB No. T95-SB002......................... 1-2 A Sept. 29, 1995.
Total pages: 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Superior Air Parts, Inc., 14280
Gillis Rd., Dallas, TX 75244-3792; telephone (800) 487-4884, fax
(214) 490-8471. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, New England
Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on September 26, 1996.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 30, 1996.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22922 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22918 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11 Series Airplanes and KC-10A (Military) Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47804-47806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22918]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-212-AD; Amendment 39-9751; AD 96-19-03]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11
Series Airplanes and KC-10A (Military) Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-11 series
airplanes and KC-10A (military) airplanes, that requires repetitive
inspections to detect corrosion or failure of the steel Hi-Lok
fasteners at the inboard flap inboard track, and replacement of
corroded/failed steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok fasteners.
This amendment also provides for termination of the repetitive
inspections by replacing all of the steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel
Hi-Lok fasteners. This amendment is prompted by reports of failed and/
or corroded steel fasteners found in the inboard flap inboard track due
to stress corrosion. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent such stress corrosion, which could result in binding of the
flap and inability of the flap to extend or retract; this situation may
lead to asymmetric flap deployment and subsequent reduced
controllability of the airplane during flight.
DATES: Effective October 16, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 16, 1996.
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: Ron Atmur, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(310) 627-5224; 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 all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10
and MD-11 series airplanes and KC-10A (military) airplanes was
published in the Federal Register on April 19, 1996 (61 FR 17261). That
action proposed to require repetitive visual inspections to detect
corrosion or failure of the steel Hi-Lok fasteners at the inboard flap
inboard track. That action also proposed to require replacement of
corroded/failed steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok fasteners.
In addition, that action proposed to provide for an optional
terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements by
replacing all the steel Hi-Lok fasteners with Hi-Lok fasteners made of
inconel.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Support for the Proposal
One commenter supports the proposed rule.
Request To Allow Installation of Steel Hi-Lok Fasteners
One commenter requests that the proposal be revised to allow the
replacement of corroded or damaged steel fasteners with the same part-
numbered steel Hi-Lok fasteners, instead of inconel Hi-Lok fasteners.
This commenter raises concerns about the timely availability of
replacement fasteners. The commenter points out that procuring inconel
Hi-Lok fasteners may entail a lead time of several months, but steel
Hi-Lok fasteners are readily available. Mandating the use of only
inconel fasteners as replacement parts could result in many aircraft
being grounded unnecessarily due to the unavailability of parts.
The FAA concurs with this commenter's request. The FAA finds that
an acceptable level of safety will be maintained if failed or corroded
steel Hi-Lok fasteners are replaced with like steel fasteners and
repetitively inspected. (Additionally, the McDonnell Douglas service
bulletins referenced in the AD contain a statement indicating: ``If
inconel Hi-Loks are unavailable, operators may use same material steel
Hi-Loks as removed.'') This finding, however, does not affect the
terminating action provided in this AD, which, if accomplished,
requires the replacement of all fasteners with ones made of inconel.
Paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(i) of the final rule have been
revised to allow fasteners to be replaced with either steel or inconel
Hi-Lok fasteners (and
[[Page 47805]]
repetitively inspected until terminating action is accomplished).
Request To Extend Initial Compliance Time for Model MD-11's
One commenter requests that paragraph (b) of the proposal be
revised to extend the compliance time for the initial inspection of
Model MD-11 series airplanes from the proposed 18 months to 72 months.
As justification for this request, the commenter points out that there
have been no reports of failed fasteners on any Model MD-11 airplane;
the only reports of failures have occurred on Model DC-10 series
airplanes that had accumulated more than 18,000 total flight cycles. In
light of this record, the commenter considers an 18-month compliance
time unwarranted for the Model MD-11.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The flap
inboard tracks of both the Model MD-11 and Model DC-10 series airplanes
are similar in design; they also operate at similar stresses and in
similar environments. In light of this, the flaps of the Model MD-11
may experience the same corrosion problems as the Model DC-10 airplanes
have experienced. Additionally, stress corrosion is unpredictable;
neither the FAA nor McDonnell Douglas can predict the onset of this
phenomenon. Therefore, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to
begin inspections as early as is reasonably possible.
In developing an appropriate compliance time for the inspections,
the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with
addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the availability of
required parts and the practical aspect of inspecting the fleet at
intervals of time that closely parallel normally scheduled maintenance
for the majority of affected operators. In consideration of all of
these factors, the FAA has determined that the compliance time, as
proposed, is not only appropriate, but warranted.
Conclusion
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.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 276 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor
rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of
the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $33,120, or $120 per
airplane, per inspection cycle.
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.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A 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 adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-19-03 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9751. Docket 95-NM-212-AD.
Applicability: All Model DC-10 and MD-11 series airplanes, and
KC-10A (military) 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 (c) 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 stress corrosion cracking in the fasteners in the
inboard flap inboard track, which could result in binding of the
flap and inability of the flap to extend or retract, accomplish the
following:
(a) For Model DC-10 series airplanes and KC-10A (military)
airplanes: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD,
perform a visual inspection to detect corrosion or failure of the
steel Hi-Lok fasteners at the inboard flap inboard track in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-10-57-134,
dated August 15, 1995.
(1) If no corrosion or failure is detected, accomplish either
paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months until paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this AD is accomplished.
(ii) Replace all steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok
fasteners in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-
10-57-134, dated August 15, 1995. Accomplishment of this replacement
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this AD.
(2) If any corrosion or failure is detected, prior to further
flight, accomplish either paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this
AD, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-10-57-
134, dated August 15, 1995.
(i) Replace all corroded/failed steel Hi-Lok fasteners with
either like steel Hi-Lok fasteners or inconel Hi-Lok fasteners, in
accordance with the service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the visual
inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD at intervals not to
exceed 18 months until paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this AD is
accomplished.
(ii) Replace all steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok
fasteners, in accordance with
[[Page 47806]]
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-10-57-134, dated August 15,
1995. Accomplishment of this replacement constitutes terminating
action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this AD.
(b) For Model MD-11 series airplanes: Within 18 months after the
effective date of this AD, perform a visual inspection to detect
corrosion or failures of the steel Hi-Lok fasteners at the inboard
flap inboard track in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin MD11-57-031, dated August 15, 1995.
(1) If no corrosion or failures are detected, accomplish either
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months until paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this AD is accomplished.
(ii) Replace all steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok
fasteners in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
MD11-57-031, dated August 15, 1995. Accomplishment of this
replacement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this AD.
(2) If any corrosion or failure is detected during the
inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, prior to further
flight, accomplish either paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this
AD, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD11-57-
031, dated August 15, 1995.
(i) Replace all corroded/failed steel Hi-Lok fasteners with
either like steel Hi-Lok fasteners or inconel Hi-Lok fasteners, in
accordance with the service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the visual
inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD at intervals not to
exceed 18 months until paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this AD is
accomplished.
(ii) Replace all steel Hi-Lok fasteners with inconel Hi-Lok
fasteners in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
MD11-57-031, dated August 15, 1995. Accomplishment of this
replacement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this AD.
(c) 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 Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The inspections and replacement shall be done in accordance
with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-10-57-134, dated August
15, 1995 (for Model DC-10 series airplanes); and McDonnell Douglas
Service Bulletin MD11-57-031, dated August 15, 1995 (for Model MD-11
series airplanes). 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 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, 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.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on October 16, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 3, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22918 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22772 Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal Inc. TFE731 Series Turbofan Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47806-47808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22772]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-55; Amendment 39-9737; AD 96-18-13]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal Inc. TFE731 Series
Turbofan Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to AlliedSignal Inc. (formerly Garrett Engine Division)
TFE731 series turbofan engines, that requires removing certain fan
rotor disks from service in accordance with a drawdown schedule, and
would establish new fan rotor disk life limits. This amendment is
prompted after additional analyses revealed that stress levels in the
fan rotor disk dovetail slots for the applicable engine models are
higher than initially calculated. The actions specified by this AD are
intended to prevent uncontained failure of the fan rotor disk due to
fatigue cracking in the dovetail slots, which can result in inflight
engine shutdowns, severe secondary damage, and fan rotor assembly
separation from the engine.
DATES: Effective November 12, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of November 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from AlliedSignal Aerospace, Attn: Data Distribution, M/S 64-
3/2101-201, P.O. Box 29003, Phoenix, AZ 85038-9003; telephone (602)
365-2493, fax (602) 365-5577. This information may be examined at the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone
(310) 627-5246; 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 AlliedSignal Inc. (formerly
Garrett Engine Division) TFE731 series turbofan engines was published
in the Federal Register on March 22, 1996 (61 FR 11790). That action
proposed to require removing certain fan rotor disks from service in
accordance with a drawdown schedule and would establish new fan rotor
disk life limits in accordance with AlliedSignal Engines Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) No. TFE731-A72-3569, dated May 31, 1995, and ASB No.
TFE731-A72-3570, dated May 31, 1995.
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.
There are approximately 5,000 engines of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 2,500 engines installed on
aircraft of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will
take approximately 16 work hours per engine to accomplish the required
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 $2,400,000.
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
[[Page 47807]]
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:
96-18-13 AlliedSignal Inc.: Amendment 39-9737. Docket 95-ANE-55.
Applicability: AlliedSignal Inc. (formerly Garrett Engine
Division) Models TFE731-2, -2A, -3, -3A, -3AR, -3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR,
-3D, -3DR, -3R, and -4R turbofan engines, installed on, but not
limited to the following aircraft: Avions Marcel Dassault Falcon 10,
50, 100 series; Learjet 31, 35, 36, and 55 series; Lockheed-Georgia
1329-23 and -25 series; Israel Aircraft Industries 1124 series and
1125 Westwind series; Cessna Model 650, Citations III, VI, and VII;
Raytheon British Aerospace HS-125 series; and Sabreliner NA-265-65.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine
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 engines 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 uncontained failure of the fan rotor disk due to
fatigue cracking in the dovetail slots, which can result in inflight
engine shutdowns, severe secondary damage, and fan rotor assembly
separation from the engine, accomplish the following:
(a) For engines equipped with fan rotor disks, part numbers (P/
N's) 3072162-5, 3073436-5, 3073539-(All), and 3074529-(All), where
(All) denotes any dash number, remove fan rotor disks from service
and install a serviceable disk in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of AlliedSignal Engines Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
No. TFE731-A72-3569, dated May 31, 1995, as required by the
following schedule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required fan rotor disk
Fan rotor disk cycles since new (CSN) retirement (remove from
on the effective date of this AD service)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,600 or less.......................... Not to exceed the new life
limit of 4,100 CSN.
3,601 to 5,500......................... Within the next 500 cycles
after the effective date of
this AD or prior to reaching
5,700 CSN, whichever occurs
first.
5,501 or greater....................... Within the next 200 cycles
after the effective date of
this AD, not to exceed 7,100
CSN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) For engines equipped with fan rotor disks, P/N 3072816-
(All), where (All) denotes any dash number, remove fan rotor disks
from service and install a serviceable disk in accordance with
Accomplishment Instructions of AlliedSignal Engines ASB No. TFE731-
A72-3570, dated May 31, 1995, as required by the following schedule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required fan rotor disk
Fan rotor disk CSN on the effective retirement (remove from
date of this AD service)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,850 or less.......................... Not to exceed the new life
limit of 4,600 CSN.
3,851 to 6,000......................... Within the next 750 cycles
after the effective date of
this AD, or prior to reaching
6,500 CSN, whichever occurs
first.
6,001 or greater....................... Within the next 500 cycles
after the effective date of
this AD, not to exceed 10,000
CSN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) A serviceable part is one that has not exceeded the life
limits established by this AD.
(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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office.
(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 aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) The actions required by this AD shall be done in accordance
with the following AlliedSignal Engines ASBs:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No. Pages Revision Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TFE731-A72-3569........................ 1-8 Original May 31, 1995.
Total Pages: 8. .............. ............................. ........................
TFE731-A72-3570........................ 1-8 Original May 31, 1995.
Total Pages: 8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 AlliedSignal Aerospace, Attn: Data
Distribution, M/S 64-3/2101-201, P.O. Box
[[Page 47808]]
29003, Phoenix, AZ 85038-9003; telephone (602) 365-2493, fax (602)
365-5577. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, New England Region,
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on November 12, 1996.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 26, 1996.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22772 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22770 Airworthiness Directives; Hartzell Propeller Inc. HC-A3V, HC-B3M, HC-B3T, HC-B4M, HC-B4T, and HC-B5M Series Propellers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47809-47813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22770]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-30; Amendment 39-9738; AD 96-18-14]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Hartzell Propeller Inc. HC-A3V, HC-B3M,
HC-B3T, HC-B4M, HC-B4T, and HC-B5M Series Propellers
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to Hartzell Propeller Inc. (Hartzell) HC-A3V, HC-B3M, HC-
B3T, HC-B4M, HC-B4T, and HC-B5M series propellers, that requires hub
replacement over a 10-year time period with a concurrent blade and
blade clamp inspection. This amendment is prompted by reports of two
propeller hub failures and one crack indication that occurred on
Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 aircraft, the similarity of construction and load
transfer paths between the Hartzell propeller models installed on the
Mitsubishi MU-2 aircraft and Hartzell's 3, 4, and 5-bladed steel hub
propeller models, several blade shank failures, and reports of cracks
in blade clamps. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent propeller hub, blade, or blade clamp failure, which can result
in loss of aircraft control.
DATES: Effective October 16, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Hartzell Propeller Inc., One Propeller Place, Piqua, OH
45356-2634, ATTN: Product Support; telephone (513) 778-4388, fax (513)
778-4321. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite
700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tomaso DiPaolo, Aerospace Engineer,
Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
2300 East Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone (847) 294-7031,
fax (847) 294-7834.
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 Hartzell Propeller Inc. (Hartzell)
HC-A3V, HC-B3M, HC-B3T, HC-B4M, HC-B4T, and HC-B5M series propellers
was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 1996 (61 FR 18520).
That action proposed to require over a 10-year time period, propeller
hub replacement with a concurrent blade and blade clamp inspection for
Hartzell Propeller Inc. Models HC-A3VF-7(), HC-B3TF-7(), HC-B3MN-3(),
HC-B3TN-2(), HC-B3TN-3(), HC-B3TN-5(), HC-B4MN-5(), HC-B4MP-3(), HC-
B4TN-3(), HC-B4TN-5(), HC-B5MA-3(), HC-B5MP-3(), HC-B5MP-5(), HC-B3MN-
5(), HC-B3TN-4(), HC-B4MP-4(), and HC-B5MN-3() propellers.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Commenters state that the AD should be modified to limit the
affected propellers to those installed on engine types similar to those
in Mitsubishi MU-2 aircraft. The commenters also state that their
service history has shown that this engine type has more problems and
that the NPRM documents that only propellers on the Mitsubishi MU-2
aircraft have been found with cracked hubs. The FAA does not concur.
Regardless of engine types, the 3, 4, and 5-bladed hubs have similar
loading and load paths to the failed propellers and, in addition, could
contain characteristics that the FAA has determined can cause a
reduction in hub fatigue strength. The NTSB has also recommended
addressing the same hub fatigue strength characteristics for the 3, 4,
and 5-bladed hubs. This hub replacement program will provide the
following hub fatigue strength improvements: (1) Improved hub
metallurgy; (2) Elimination of any surface decarburization in the pilot
tube bore; (3) Introduction of compressive residual stress in the pilot
tube bore; (4) Improved corrosion protection in the pilot tube bore;
and (5) Improved surface finish in the pilot tube bore.
Additionally, the commenters state that the cost of complying with
the proposed AD is severely understated and will increase overhaul
costs. Therefore, they imply that the proposed AD should be withdrawn
or limited in scope. The FAA does not concur. The costs documented in
the AD are weighted average costs. For example, individual operators
with five-bladed propellers will have costs that run higher than the
weighted average costs. Therefore, the costs stated in the AD
[[Page 47810]]
should not be construed as understated. Concerning the increase in
overhaul costs comment, the FAA has determined that the required
actions are necessary to address an unsafe condition. While those
required actions may increase maintenance costs, those increased costs
are balanced by achieving a level of safety that protects against
further failures. However, if the operator complies with the proposed
AD at overhaul, the cost is lower than accomplishing the AD action by
itself.
Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has determined that relief can
be given to the compliance schedule. Therefore, the dates for hub
replacement and inspections are shifted three months for all affected
propellers. Table 1 now reflects the denoted three month calendar
shift.
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 as proposed with the changes
described previously. 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 24,320 propellers of the affected design in
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 50% of the subject
propellers are installed on aircraft of U.S. registry and that 75% will
have the work done during normally scheduled propeller maintenance. For
those who accomplish the AD action during normal propeller maintenance,
the parts cost will average $1,955 with no additional labor. For those
who accomplish the AD action by itself, the parts cost will average
$2,174, plus approximately 27 work hours per propeller at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost
impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $29,363,360. The
cost will vary between the 3, 4, and 5-bladed propeller configurations
and the above data represents an average cost.
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:
96-18-14 Hartzell Propeller Inc.: Amendment 39-9738. Docket 95-ANE-
30.
Applicability: Hartzell Propeller Inc. (Hartzell) Models HC-
A3VF-7( ), HC-B3TF-7( ), HC-B3MN-3( ), HC-B3TN-2( ), HC-B3TN-3( ),
HC-B3TN-5 ( ), HC-B4MN-5( ), HC-B4MP-3( ), HC-B4TN-3( ), HC-B4TN-5(
), HC-B5MA-3( ), HC-B5MP-3( ), HC-B5MP-5( ), HC-B3MN-5( ), HC-B3TN-
4( ), HC-B4MP-4( ), and HC-B5MN-3( ) propellers. These propellers
are installed on but not limited to the following aircraft:
Aerospace Technologies of Australia PTY LTD N22B, N24A, N22S;
Air Tractor, Inc. AT-301, AT-302, AT-400, AT-400A, AT-401, AT-402,
AT-502, AT-503, AT-802;
Agusta S.p.A. SF600, F.260;
Ayres Corporation S-2R, S2R-T11, S2R-T15, S2R-T34, S2R-T56, S2RHG-
T65;
Beech A36, 65-90, 65-90A, C90, B90, E90, C90A, F90, 100, 200, 200C,
A200C, B200, B200C, 200T, 200CT, A200CT, B200T, B200CT, 65-80, 65-
A90-1, 65-A90-2, 65-A90-4, 99, 99A, A99A, B99, A200, C99, H90, 300,
300LW, B300, B300C, 1900, 1900C, T34C, T34C-1;
Cessna 208, 208A, 208B, 421, 425, 441, 402, P210N;
Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A. (CASA) C-212-CB, -CC, -CE, -CF;
deHavilland Aircraft Co., Ltd. D.H.114;
deHavilland Inc. DHC-2, DHC-3, DHC-4; DHC-6, 1, 100, 200, 300;
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S/A Embraer EMB-110P1, EMB-110P2;
Fairchild Aircraft, Inc. SA26-AT, -T; SA226-AT, -TB;
Frakes Aviation (Gulfstream American ) G-73;
Great Lakes Aircraft Co. 2T-1A;
Helio HST-550, HST-550A;
Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Piaggio P.166DL3;
Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd. Arava 101, 101B;
McDonnell Douglas DC-3 series;
McKinnon Enterprises, Inc. (Grumman) G-21E, G21-G;
Mitsubishi MU-2B series;
Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd. FU24-954, FU2A-954;
Partenavia Costruzioni Aeronautiche S.p.A. AP68TP 300, AP68TP 600;
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6/A-H2, /B1-H2, /B-H2, /B2-H2, /B2-H4, PC-
7;
Piper Aircraft Corporation PA31-T1, -T2, -T3; PA31P; PA42, -42-720,
-42-720R;
Prop-Jets, Inc., Interceptor (Aero Commander) (Meyers) 400;
Schweizer Aircraft Corp. (Grumman) G-164A, G-164B, G-164B-34T, -15T,
G-164D;
Short Bros. Limited & Harland Ltd. SC-7 series, SD3 series;
Twin Commander Aircraft Corp. 680T, V, 681, 690A, 690B, 690C, 695,
695A;
Weatherly Aviation Company 620TP.
Note 1: The parenthesis that appear in the propeller models
indicate the presence or absence of additional letter(s) which vary
the basic propeller hub model designation. This airworthiness
directive (AD) is applicable regardless of whether these letters are
present or absent on the propeller hub model designation.
Note 2: The above is not a complete list of aircraft which may
contain the affected Hartzell Propeller Inc. Models HC-A3VF-7( ),
HC-B3TF-7( ), HC-B3MN-3( ), HC-B3TN-2( ), HC-B3TN-3( ), HC-B3TN-5(
), HC-B4MN-5( ), HC-B4MP-3( ), HC-B4TN-3( ), HC-B4TN-5( ), HC-B5MA-
3( ), HC-B5MP-3( ), HC-B5MP-5( ), HC-B3MN-5( ), HC-B3TN-4( ), HC-
B4MP-4( ), and HC-B5MN-3( ) propellers because of installation
approvals made by, for example, Supplemental Type Certificate or
field approval under FAA Form 337 ``Major Repair and Alteration.''
It is the responsibility of the owner, operator, and person
returning the aircraft to service to determine if an aircraft has an
affected propeller.
Note 3: This AD applies to each propeller 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 propellers 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 (h) to request approval from the Federal
Aviation Administration (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
[[Page 47811]]
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 propeller from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent propeller hub, blade, or blade clamp failure, which
can result in loss of aircraft control, accomplish the following:
(a) This AD requires no action for operators with Hartzell
propeller models HC-B4TN-5(D,G,J)L/LT10282(B,K)-5.3R, HC-B4TN-
5(D,G,J)L/LT10282N(B,K)-5.3R, and HC-B4TN-5(D,G,J)L/LT10282NS(B,K)-
5.3R installed on Mitsubishi MU-2B-26A, -36A, -40, -60; MU-2B-30
modified by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA336GL-D & SA339GL-
D; MU-2B-36 Modified by STC SA2413SW and any other MU-2 Series
aircraft which have the referenced propeller models installed. These
operators must, however, comply with AD 95-01-02.
(b) This AD requires no action for operators with Hartzell
propeller models HC-B4TN-3/T10173F(N)(B,K)-12.5 and HC-B4TN-3A/
T10173F(N)(B,K)-12.5 installed on Beech A100 and A100A aircraft.
These operators must, however, comply with AD 95-03-03.
(c) Disassemble the propeller in accordance with Hartzell
Propeller Inc. Service Manual 118F, Revision 2, dated May 1992,
pages 15 to 19, for 3- and 4-bladed hub models, and Service Manual
132A, Revision 2, dated June 1992, pages IV-5 to IV-11, for 5-bladed
hub models, remove the hub from service, and replace the hub with a
serviceable hub in accordance with the compliance schedule in Table
1 of this AD.
(1) Utilize Table 1 of this AD in accordance with the following
example: Model HC-B3TN-3( ) series propellers, starting with serial
numbers (S/N's) BU1 through BU377, require replacement before the
end of March of calendar year 1997. Serial numbers BU378 through
BU754 require hub replacement before the end of September of
calendar year 1997, and so forth.
(2) The affected hubs can only be replaced with serviceable hubs
having a S/N not listed in Table 1 of this AD for that propeller
model, or serviceable hubs having a S/N for which replacement is not
yet required in accordance with Table 1 of this AD.
(3) Some existing propeller hub S/N's include a suffix letter,
such as an ``A.'' The presence or absence of this letter has no
significance in determining compliance.
(4) Since a hub may be used in various propeller models, the S/N
and the model number shown in Table 1 of this AD may not coincide.
Precedence is given to the hub S/N in determining compliance
requirements. The hub model is only given as a reference.
(5) Hub replacement must be accomplished by the end of the
calendar month indicated at the top of the appropriate column in
Table 1 of this AD. The S/N ranges in this table identify the
propeller hubs that require replacement by the end of that month.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
[[Page 47812]]
Table 1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11SE96.002
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
[[Page 47813]]
(d) Perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection of blades for
cracks in accordance with Hartzell Propeller Inc. Service Bulletin
136H, dated March 12, 1993, prior to installing a serviceable hub.
(e) Perform magnetic particle inspection of blade clamps for
cracks in accordance with Hartzell Service Manual 202A, dated March
1993, pages 201 to 215, prior to installing a serviceable hub.
(f) If cracks are found in either the blade or the blade clamps,
prior to further flight replace with serviceable blade or blade
clamps.
(g) Reassemble the propeller in accordance with Hartzell
Propeller Inc. Service Manual 118F, Revision 2, dated May 1992,
pages 57 to 96, for 3- and 4-bladed hub models, and Service Manual
132A, Revision 2, dated June 1992, pages VII-1 to VII-46, for 5-
blade hub models.
(h) 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, Chicago Aircraft Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Chicago Aircraft Certification
Office.
(i) 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 aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(j) The actions required by this AD shall be done in accordance
with the following service documents:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No. Pages Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hartzell Propeller Inc., SB No. 136H... 1-18 March 12, 1993.
Total Pages: 18.
Hartzell Propeller Inc., Service Manual 201-215 March 1993.
No. 202A.
Total Pages: 15.
TRW Hartzell Propeller Overhaul Manual, 57, 58 April 1985.
No. 118-E.
Hartzell Propeller Inc., Manual No. 59, 60 May 1992.
118F, Revision 2.
TRW Hartzell Propeller Overhaul Manual 61-83 April 1985.
No. 119-E.
Hartzell Propeller Inc., Manual No. 84, 84a, 84b May 1992.
118F, Revision 2.
TRW Hartzell Propeller Overhaul Manual 85, 86 April 1985.
No. 118-E.
Hartzell Propeller Inc., Manual No. 87, 88, 88a, 88b April 1985, May 1992.
118F, Revision 2.
TRW Hartzell Propeller, Overhaul Manual 89-96 April 1985.
No. 118-E.
Total Pages: 44.
Hartzell Propeller, Products Division, VII-1-VII-30 Sept. 1, 1985.
Instruction Manual No. 132-A.
Hartzell Propeller Inc., Instruction VII-31 Sept. 1, 1985.
Manual No. 132-A.
Hartzell Propeller Inc., Manual No. VII-32 No Date.
132A.
Hartzell Propeller, Products Division, VII-33-VII-40 Sept. 1, 1985.
Instruction Manual No. 132-A.
Hartzell Propeller Inc., Instruction VII-41 Sept. 1, 1985.
Manual No. 132-A.
Hartzell Propeller Inc., Manual No. VII-42, VII-43 April 1990.
132A, Revision #1.
Hartzell Propeller Inc., Instruction VII-44 Sept. 1, 1985.
Manual No. 132-A.
Hartzell Propeller Inc., Manual No. VII-45, VII-46 April 1990.
132A, Revision #1.
Total Pages: 46........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hartzell Propeller Inc., One
Propeller Place, Piqua, OH 45356-2634, ATTN: Product Support;
telephone (513) 778-4388, fax (513) 778-4321. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(k) This amendment becomes effective on October 16, 1996.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 26, 1996.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22770 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22599 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47808-47809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22599]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-10-AD; Amendment 39-9744; AD 96-18-18]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to all Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes, that requires
inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the forward
fitting of frame 47, and repair, if necessary. This amendment is
prompted by results of full-scale fatigue testing, which revealed
cracking in the upper radius of frame 47. The actions specified by this
AD are intended to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of frame 47 of the fuselage.
DATES: Effective October 16, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. 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: Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2589; 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 Airbus Model A300-600 series
airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1996 (61 FR
33874). That action proposed to require repetitive eddy current
inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the left and
right forward fitting of frame 47, and repair, if necessary.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the single comment received.
The commenter supports the proposed rule.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comment
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 35 Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes of
U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take
approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required
actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated
to be $8,400, or $240 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.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A 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.
39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-18-18 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39-9744. Docket 96-NM-10-AD.
Applicability: All Model A300-600 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 (b) 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 frame 47 of the
fuselage, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 17,300 total landings, or
within one year after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Perform an eddy current inspection to detect cracking
of the upper radius of the left and right forward fitting of frame
47, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029,
Revision 2, dated November 7, 1994.
[[Page 47809]]
(1) If no cracking is found during an eddy current inspection:
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,600
landings.
(2) If any cracking is found during an eddy current inspection:
Prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate.
(b) 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 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(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 airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The inspection shall be done in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 2, dated November 7, 1994,
which contains the following list of effective pages:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision level
Page No. shown on page Date shown on page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3............................. 2................ Nov. 7, 1994.
4-6............................. 1................ Feb. 23, 1994.
7-22............................ Original......... Aug. 23, 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. 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.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on October 16, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 29, 1996.
Bill Boxwell,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22599 Filed 9-10-96; 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.