issue-1996-09-18•Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-18
Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-18
issue-1996-09-18Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-18Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-23939 Interactive Video and Data Service
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49066-49076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23939]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 95
[PP Docket No. 93-253; FCC 96-330]
Interactive Video and Data Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order affirms the competitive
bidding procedures adopted in the Fourth Report and Order, with several
exceptions. Specifically, the Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order
proposes to: clarify the Commission's anti-collusion rules; permits use
of simultaneous multiple round bidding for interactive video and data
service (IVDS) auctions; and eliminates the tax certificate program
available to investors in women- and minority-owned businesses in
accordance with Congressional action. The Sixth Memorandum Opinion and
Order also grants a petitioner's request that bidding credits be made
available for both licenses in each IVDS service area. The intended
effect of this action is to resolve petitions for reconsideration and
[[Page 49067]]
to clarify or modify the competitive bidding rules governing the
methodology and procedure for auctions for IVDS licenses.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Malinen, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0680 or Christina Eads Clearwater,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0660.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
in PP Docket No. 93-253; FCC 96-330, adopted August 6, 1996 and
released September 10, 1996. The complete text of the Sixth Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street,
N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
Title: In the Matter of Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act--Competitive Bidding.
I. Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order
1. In the Fourth Report and Order, Implementation of Section 309(j)
of the Communications Act--Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253,
59 FR 24947 (May 13, 1994), 9 FCC Rcd 2330 (1994), the Commission
adopted competitive bidding rules for selecting between mutually
exclusive applicants for IVDS spectrum. By Public Notices issued on May
23, June 17, and July 5, 1994, the Commission provided additional
information concerning the IVDS auctions.
2. Petitioner Phase One argues that, because the Commission may
only conduct an auction if there are mutually exclusive applications,
it should not have established IVDS auction dates until mutual
exclusivity had been determined. Petitioner also maintains that
interested parties did not have adequate time to plan their competitive
bidding strategy for the IVDS auction.
3. The Commission disagrees with petitioner's assertion that the
Commission may not establish auction dates or publicize auctions until
it has determined that mutual exclusivity exists. While the Commission
recognizes that it cannot conduct an auction for licenses for which
there are not mutually exclusive applications, it notes that scheduling
and announcing auction dates are no more than preparatory measures. The
Fourth Report and Order, states, that in the event the Commission
receives only one application that is acceptable for filing for a
particular frequency segment, then the pre-scheduled auction would be
cancelled. Moreover, the Commission conducted the July 1994 auction for
IVDS licenses only after mutual exclusivity had been established in all
markets. Thus, it concludes that the pre-auction application procedures
ensure that spectrum auctions will be conducted only in those
circumstances authorized by the Communications Act.
4. The Commission also disagrees with allegations that its auction
schedule did not provide applicants adequate time to prepare for the
IVDS auction. The Commission received more than 500 applications by the
June 27, 1994 filing deadline for short-form applications (FCC Form
175). The large number of timely applications it received, along with
its outreach efforts to disseminate information to the public about the
IVDS auctions, through the initial May 23, 1994 Public Notice and
subsequent public notices issued during the five week period prior to
the filing deadline, evidence that a substantial number of parties
found themselves aptly prepared to participate in the IVDS auction. As
a result, the Commission finds petitioner's contention to be
unpersuasive.
5. In the Second Report and Order, Implementation of Section 309(j)
of the Communications Act--Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253,
59 FR 22980 (May 4, 1994), 9 FCC Rcd 2348 (1994)(Second Report and
Order), the Commission adopted rules prohibiting collusive conduct in
the context of competitive bidding. See 47 CFR Sec. 1.2105(c); see also
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 FR 44272 (August 26, 1994), 9
FCC Rcd 7245, erratum, Mimeo No. 50278 (October 19, 1994)(Second
Memorandum Opinion and Order). Specifically, the Commission determined
that bidders would be prohibited from discussing the substance of their
bids or bidding strategies with other bidders, unless such bidders are
members of a bidding consortium or other joint bidding arrangement
identified on their short-form application. It also required bidders to
identify on their short-form applications all parties with whom they
have entered into any consortium arrangements, joint ventures,
partnerships or other agreements relating to the competitive bidding
process. Second Report and Order. It also determined that auction
applicants would not be permitted to make any ownership changes or
changes in the identification of parties to bidding consortia once a
short-form application is filed. Id.
6. The Commission rejected Petitioner ITV's contention that the
Commission lacks the authority under the Communications Act to preclude
settlements between mutually exclusive applicants for licenses in
auctionable services. While the Commission has an established policy of
favoring settlements in some contexts, it is within its statutory
authority to restrict settlements if the Commission finds such
agreements would not be in the public interest. See, e.g., Report and
Order, MM Docket No. 90-263, 6 FCC Rcd 85 (1990), modified in part,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket 90-253, 6 FCC Rcd 2901 (1991)
(limiting settlements between mutually exclusive applicants for
broadcast construction permits). At this time, the Commission finds
that prohibiting settlements after the short form filing deadline
between mutually exclusive applicants for the same license in the IVDS
competitive bidding process is necessary to deter collusive conduct and
ensure a competitive auction, and is thereby in the public interest.
The anti-collusion rules also prevent entities from filing applications
solely for the purpose of demanding payment from other bidders in
exchange for settlement or withdrawal.
7. Nevertheless, the Commission takes this opportunity to clarify
certain aspects of the anti-collusion rules. 47 CFR Sec. 1.2105(c). It
clarifies that the anti-collusion rules apply where one applicant has a
common ownership interest with another applicant. Second Memorandum
Opinion and Order. Specifically, unless the second applicant is
expressly identified as an entity with whom the first applicant has an
agreement concerning bidding, these parties may not communicate with
each other concerning their bids or bidding strategies. This
prohibition holds even where the other bidder is identified on the
applicant's short-form application as having a common ownership
interest with the applicant. Id. See also Public Notice, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau Clarifies Spectrum Auction Anti-Collusion
Rules, DA 95-2244 (October 26, 1995); and further clarification in
Order, Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with
Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and
in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of
Section 309(j) of the Communications
[[Page 49068]]
Act--Competitive Bidding, DA 95-2292 (released November 3, 1995).
Further, consistent with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
(Bureau) approach in the Broadband PCS C Block auction, amendments to
the short-form application must be filed with the Commission within ten
business days of any such change. See Public Notice, Qualified Bidders
and Bidding Instructions For December 18, 1995 Broadband PCS C Block
Auction, Report No. AUC-95-05, Auction No. 5 at 3 (December 8, 1995).
8. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission established the
criteria to be used in selecting the competitive bidding methodology
for each auctionable service. Generally, it concluded that awarding
licenses to those parties that value them most highly will promote the
rapid development and deployment of new services, and the efficient and
intensive use of the spectrum. In the Fourth Report and Order, the
Commission adopted an oral outcry competitive bidding methodology for
auctioning 594 MSA licenses in IVDS. For the remaining RSA licenses,
the Commission concluded that a sealed bid competitive bidding
mechanism was appropriate. The Commission observed that both methods
appear suited to IVDS because they are relatively inexpensive for the
Commission to administer and the costs of bidder participation are
fairly low. The Commission reserved discretion, however, to reconsider
this competitive bidding design if, in view of its actual auctions
experience, a change appears warranted.
9. The Commission anticipates that it will auction the remaining
IVDS licenses using the oral outcry method. It used this method
successfully to auction 594 MSA licenses on July 28 and 29, 1994 and
finds that auctioning IVDS licenses in this manner continues to serve
the public interest. The Commission amends its IVDS rules, however, to
permit use of simultaneous multiple round bidding as well. This method,
with its remote bidding capabilities, has been successful in PCS,
Multipoint and/or Multichannel Distribution Service (MDS), and 900 MHz
Specialized Mobile Radio (900 MHz SMR) auctions. As the Commission
continues to gain experience in conducting simultaneous multiple round
auctions, the costs associated with this methodology decline. As a
result, the Commission reserves the option of using a simultaneous
multiple round auction methodology for future IVDS auctions. It
delegates authority to the Bureau to announce the type of auction and
the procedures by public notice.
10. In the event that the Commission uses the simultaneous multiple
round auction methodology, it will specify minimum bid increments. See
Second Report and Order. The bid increment is the amount or percentage
by which the bid must be raised above the previous round's high bid in
order to be accepted as valid in the current bidding round. The
application of a minimum bid increment speeds the auction progress and,
along with activity and stopping rules, helps to ensure that the
auction closes within a reasonable period of time. Establishing an
appropriate minimum bid increment is important in a simultaneous
auction with a simultaneous closing rule, because all markets remain
open until there is no bidding on any license and a delay in closing
one market will delay the closing of all markets.
11. If the Commission elects to use simultaneous multiple round
auctions, it will conduct the auction in three stages and start the
auction with large bid increments, reducing the increments as bidding
activity falls. The minimum bid increment in Stage I of the auction
will be 5 percent of the high bid in the previous round or $.02 per
bidding unit, whichever is greater. The Commission will reduce the
minimum bid increment as the auction moves through its stages, with a
minimum bid increment of the greater of two percent or $.01 per bidding
unit in Stage II, and the greater of one percent or $.005 per bidding
unit in Stage III. The Commission, however, retains the discretion in
IVDS auctions to vary the minimum bid increments for individual
licenses, or groups of licenses, at any time before or during the
course of an auction. The Commission delegates to the Bureau the
authority to exercise such discretion. See 47 CFR Sec. 0.331; see also
Order, Amendment of Part 0 of the Commission's Rules to Reflect a
Reorganization Establishing the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and
to Make Changes in the Delegated Authority of Other Bureaus, 60 FR
35503 (July 10, 1995), 10 FCC Rcd 12751 (1995).
12. If the Commission decides to use simultaneous multiple round
bidding for the IVDS auction, it intends to use a simultaneous stopping
rule. Because of the large number of licenses likely to be auctioned at
once, however, it will retain the discretion either to use a hybrid
stopping rule or to allow bidding to close individually for these
licenses. The specific stopping rule to conclude bidding on IVDS
licenses will be announced by Public Notice prior to auction. The
Commission also retains the discretion to declare at any point after 40
rounds that the auction will end after some specified number of
additional rounds. The Commission believes this number of rounds will
ensure that the auction will not close prematurely, while providing
bidders with fair assurance that the auction will be conducted as
intended. See Fifth Report and Order, 59 FR 37566 (July 22, 1994), 9
FCC Rcd 5532 (1994). Bids will be accepted only on licenses where the
high bid has increased in the last three rounds. This will deter
bidders from continuing to bid on a few low value licenses solely to
delay the closing of the auction. It will also enable the Commission to
end the auction when it determines that the benefits of terminating the
auction and issuing licenses exceed the likely benefits of continuing
to allow bidding. The Commission will announce by Public Notice the
number of remaining rounds and other final bidding procedures. The
Commission delegates to the Bureau the authority to exercise such
discretion.
13. Duration of Bidding Rounds. In simultaneous multiple round
auctions, bidders may need a certain amount of time to evaluate back-up
strategies and develop their bidding plans. In the event the Commission
uses the simultaneous multiple round auction methodology, it delegates
to the Bureau the discretion to vary the duration of the bidding rounds
or the interval at which bids are accepted (e.g., run more than one
round per day) in order to move the auction toward closure more
quickly. The Bureau will announce any changes to the duration of, and
intervals between, bidding rounds, either by Public Notice prior to the
auction or by announcement during the auction.
14. As discussed above, in order to ensure that simultaneous
auctions with simultaneous stopping rules close within a reasonable
period of time and to increase the information conveyed by bid prices
during the auction, it is necessary to impose an activity rule to
prevent bidders from waiting until the end of the auction before
participating. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted
the Milgrom-Wilson activity rule as its preferred activity rule where a
simultaneous stopping rule is used. The Milgrom-Wilson approach
encourages bidders to participate in early rounds by limiting their
maximum participation to some multiple of their minimum participation
level. Bidders are required to declare their maximum eligibility in
terms of bidding units, and to make an upfront payment proportional to
that eligibility level. In each round, bidders are limited
[[Page 49069]]
to bidding on licenses encompassing no more than the number of bidding
units covered by their upfront payment. Licenses on which a bidder is
the high bidder at the end of the withdrawal period in the previous
round, as well as licenses on which a new valid bid is placed, count
toward this limit. Under this approach, bidders have the flexibility to
shift their bids among any license for which they have applied so long
as, within each round, the total bidding units encompassed by those
licenses does not exceed the total number of bidding units on which
they are eligible to bid.
15. In general, the auction will start in Stage I and move to Stage
II if the auction activity level is below 10 percent for three
consecutive rounds in Stage I, and move from Stage II to Stage III if
the auction activity level is below five percent for three consecutive
rounds in Stage II. In no case can the auction revert to an earlier
stage. However, the Commission retains the discretion to announce
during the course of an auction when, and if, the auction will move
from one auction stage to the next. These determinations will be based
on a variety of measures of bidder activity including, but not limited
to, the auction activity level defined above, the percentage of
licenses (measured in terms of bidding units) on which there are new
bids, the number of new bids, and the percentage increase in revenue.
The Commission delegates to the Bureau the authority to exercise such
discretion.
16. To avoid the consequences of clerical errors and to compensate
for unusual circumstances that might delay a bidder's bid preparation
or submission on a particular day, the Commission will provide bidders
with five activity rule waivers that may be used in any round during
the course of the auction. If a bidder's activity level is below the
required activity level a waiver automatically will be applied. That
is, if a bidder fails to submit a bid in a round, and its activity
level from any standing high bids (high bids at the end of the bid
withdrawal period in the previous round) falls below its required
activity level, a waiver will be applied automatically. A waiver will
preserve current eligibility in the next round, but cannot be used to
correct an error in the amount bid. An activity rule waiver applies to
an entire round of bidding and not to a particular MSA or RSA service
area.
17. Bidders will be afforded an opportunity to override the
automatic waiver mechanism when they place a bid, if they intentionally
wish to reduce their bidding eligibility and do not want to use a
waiver to retain their eligibility at its current level. If a bidder
overrides the automatic waiver mechanism, its eligibility will be
reduced permanently (according to the formulas specified above), and it
will not be permitted to regain its bidding eligibility from a previous
round. An automatic waiver invoked in a round in which there are no
valid bids will not keep the auction open. Bidders will have the option
to enter an activity rule waiver proactively during the bid submission
period. Thus, a ``proactive'' waiver, as distinguished from an
automatic waiver, is one requested by the bidder. If a bidder submits a
proactive waiver in a round in which no other bidding activity occurs,
the auction will remain open.
18. If a simultaneous multiple round auction is employed, the
Commission retains the discretion to issue additional waivers during
the course of an auction for circumstances beyond a bidder's control
and delegates to the Bureau the authority to exercise such discretion.
The Bureau also retains the flexibility to adjust, by Public Notice
prior to an auction, the number of waivers permitted, or to institute a
rule that allows one waiver during a specified number of bidding rounds
or during specified stages of the auction.
19. A waiver may be submitted either in the round in which bidding
falls below the minimum required level to maintain (for the next round)
the same eligibility as in that round, or prior to submitting a bid in
the next round. If an activity rule waiver is entered in a round in
which no other bidding activity occurs, the auction will remain open.
However, an activity rule waiver entered after a round in which no
other bidding activity occurs will not reopen the auction. In addition,
to help ensure that the auctions are not closed prematurely, the
Commission will retain the discretion to keep an auction open even if
no new acceptable bids and no proactive waivers are submitted in a
single round. In such an instance, the Commission would, in effect, be
submitting its own proactive waiver, thus keeping the auction open. At
such time, the Commission could also advance to larger bid increments,
speeding the pace of the auction.
20. If the Commission chooses to use a simultaneous multiple round
auction methodology, it intends to apply bid withdrawal provisions. In
the Second Report and Order, the Commission determined that bid
withdrawal provisions were needed to discourage insincere bidding. The
Commission observed that insincere bidding, whether frivolous or
strategic, distorts the price information generated by the auction
process and reduces its efficiency. Accordingly, the Commission adopts
the bid withdrawal provisions established in the Second Report and
Order. 47 CFR Sec. 1.2104(g)(1). Pursuant to these rules, any bidder
who withdraws a high bid during an auction will be required to
reimburse the Commission the amount of the difference between its high
bid and the amount of the winning bid the next time the license is
offered by the Commission, if this subsequent winning bid is lower than
the withdrawn bid. No withdrawal payment will be assessed if the
subsequent winning bid exceeds the withdrawn bid. If a license is
reoffered by auction, the ``winning bid'' refers to the high bid in the
auction in which the license is reoffered. If a license is reoffered in
the same auction, the winning bid refers to the high bid amount, made
subsequent to the withdrawal, in that auction. If the subsequent high
bidder also withdraws its bid, that bidder will be required to pay an
amount equal to the difference between its withdrawn bid and the amount
of the subsequent winning bid the next time the license is offered by
the Commission. If a license which is the subject of withdrawal is not
re-auctioned but is instead offered to the highest losing bidders in
the initial auction, the ``winning bid'' refers to the bid of the
highest bidder who accepts the offer. Losing bidders would not be
required to accept the offer, i.e., they may decline without penalty.
The payment amount will be deducted from any upfront payments or down
payments that the withdrawing bidder has deposited with the Commission.
[But see Order, Atlanta Trunking Associates, Inc. v. MAP Wireless
L.L.C. Requests to Waive Bid Withdrawal Payment Provisions, FCC 96-203,
(released May 3, 1996) (summarized in 61 FR 25807 (May 23, 1996)),
recon. pending; the Atlanta Trunking guidelines were formally
incorporated into and adopted by Report and Order, 61 FR 33859 (July 1,
1996), FCC 96-278 (released June 24, 1996) which amended Sec. 24.704 of
the competitive bidding rules.]
21. In establishing its auction methodology for IVDS, the
Commission set forth several provisions to ensure that winning bidders
have the resources needed to obtain their licenses and construct their
systems and to discourage insincere bidding. In the Fourth Report and
Order, the Commission required applicants to show a cashier's check in
the amount of $2,500 for each five licenses sought in order to obtain a
bidding number and
[[Page 49070]]
participate in the auction. Immediately following the auction, winning
bidders were required to submit a $2,500 upfront payment for every five
licenses won. The Commission anticipated that this amount would ensure
that only serious, qualified applicants would be eligible to bid at
auction. In addition, it required winning bidders to make a substantial
down payment within five business days after the close of bidding.
Generally, the Commission required that the down payment be sufficient
to bring the winning bidder's total deposit with the Commission up to
20 percent of the amount bid. Small business applicants were permitted
to pay 10 percent at that time and the remaining 10 percent within five
days of the grant of the license.
22. Petitioner ITV requests that the Commission refund upfront
payment amounts to the extent that they not only cover, but exceed, the
required down payment. Petitioner maintains that this policy would
ensure that winning bidders are not penalized by prevailing with a low
bid. Petitioner alleges that this modification is especially important
to applicants that qualify as a small business, who need to conserve
their financial resources for other auctions, and when the Commission
cannot pay interest on collected funds.
23. The Commission grants the petition on this issue. The
Commission agrees with petitioner that winning bidders should not be
penalized because their winning bid was lower than the amount the
upfront payment would suggest. The Commission will issue a refund to
any qualified applicants after determining that no bid withdrawal or
default payments are owed. Due to administrative constraints, however,
the Commission will not honor requests that any excess amount be
retained and applied toward later payments or obligations. Additional
instructions for obtaining a refund will be provided in a Bidder
Information Package prior to auction.
24. In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission adopted default
payments to discourage insincere bidding and to compensate the
government for the cost of reauctioning a license. Specifically, the
Commission determined that the defaulting auction winner would be
assessed an additional payment of three percent of the subsequent
winning bid or three percent of its own bid, whichever is less.
25. Petitioner ITV requests that, where the new bid on a license
(upon reauction) exceeds the defaulting applicant's bid by 3 percent or
more, no default payment be applied. In the event that the subsequent
bid exceeds the defaulting bid by less than 3 percent, petitioner
requests that the defaulting applicant should only be responsible for
payment of the difference between the subsequent winning bid and 103
percent of the defaulting applicant's bid. Petitioner maintains that
this proposal will prevent any windfall to the U.S. Treasury.
26. The Commission believes that its existing default provisions
serve an important purpose by helping to deter insincere or speculative
bidding, and providing an incentive for bidders wishing to withdraw
their bids to do so before bidding ceases. In the Second Report and
Order, the Commission observed that it is appropriate to create such an
incentive because a withdrawal that occurs after an auction closes
(default) is likely to be more harmful than one that occurs before
closing. The Commission noted, for example, that default reduces the
likelihood that licenses will be assigned to those who value them the
most and imposes additional costs on the government. Therefore, it
determined that an additional 3 percent payment would discourage
bidders from defaulting on licenses won at auction. The Commission
continues to believe that this amount is appropriate and will
reasonably compensate the government for costs associated with
reauctioning the license. Thus, petitioner's proposal is rejected.
27. In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission established
several special provisions to ensure that designated entities, i.e.,
small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by
members of minority groups and women, are given the opportunity to
participate both in the competitive bidding process for, and in the
provision of, IVDS. The Commission's rules provide that on one of the
two licenses in each market, a 25 percent bidding credit would be
awarded to a winning bidder that is a business owned by women or
minorities. 47 CFR Secs. 95.816(d)(1). It declined to provide bidding
credits to rural telephone companies, however, because the Commission
concluded that the relatively modest build-out costs for systems in
this service would make such special provisions unnecessary to ensure
that they had the opportunity to participate in the provision of IVDS
offerings to rural areas. The Commission also made tax certificates
available to initial investors in minority and women-owned businesses,
and to licensees that transfer their authorizations to minority and
women-owned enterprises. Id. Finally, because installment payments are
an effective way to promote the participation of designated entities
and to distribute licenses and services among geographic areas, and
because use of IVDS spectrum is very likely to match the business
objectives of bona fide small businesses, the Commission allowed small
businesses to pay for their licenses using installment payments. Id.
28. Also, to ensure that its special provisions for designated
entities would benefit only the parties to whom they were directed, the
Commission adopted ``unjust enrichment'' provisions designed to
discourage trafficking in licenses obtained using these special
provisions. 47 CFR Secs. 1.2111, 95.816(e). For example, the unjust
enrichment provisions require reimbursement of the bidding credit plus
interest when the licensee assigns or transfers the license to a
business not owned by minorities and/or women. In addition, the
Commission requires small business licensees to pay back the full
amount of the remaining principal balance upon transfer or assignment
of a license to a non-qualifying entity. 47 CFR Sec. 1.2110(c).
29. Petitioner ITV requests that a bidding credit be made available
for both licenses in each IVDS service area. Petitioner asserts that
the Commission did not adequately explain why it restricted the use of
bidding credits to one license per service area, and that any interest
in ``maximizing'' auction revenue would be contrary to statutory
authority.
30. The Commission grants the petition on this issue. In the Fourth
Report and Order, the Commission stated that providing bidding credits
in the IVDS auctions was ``necessary to provide [the pertinent]
designated entities with a significant enough advantage to ensure their
ability to compete successfully for some IVDS licenses.'' Fourth Report
and Order. The Commission notes, however, that it is not required to
provide all potential special provisions to all designated entities in
all auction contexts. The Commission also notes, contrary to
petitioner's assertions, that it did not limit the application of
bidding credits to only half of the available licenses solely to
maximize auction revenues, but rather considered many other factors.
The Commission chose to make bidding credits available to only half of
the available licenses, rather than all of them, because the Commission
believed that this substantial level of assistance, coupled with the
special provision of tax certificates, fulfilled its statutory mandate
to ensure that businesses owned by minorities and/or women would have a
meaningful opportunity to
[[Page 49071]]
participate in the competitive bidding process for, and in the
provision of, IVDS offerings. The Commission notes that these
provisions achieved a high degree of designated entity participation in
the initial IVDS auction. Of the 594 licenses, 195 (32.8%) were won by
bidders claiming minority-owned status, 282 (47.5%) by bidders claiming
woman-owned status, and 557 (93.8%) by bidders claiming small business
status. Since that time, however, the tax certificate program has been
discontinued by Congress, and, as discussed infra, the Commission is
reconsidering the eligibility criteria for bidding credits in the IVDS
context in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Adarand.
Accordingly, to the extent bidding credits are retained for IVDS, the
Commission will provide bidding credits for both licenses in each
service area. In view of the discontinuation of the tax certificate
program, the Commission believes that extending the bidding credit to
both licenses is appropriate to increase the participation
opportunities available for designated entities.
31. The Commission eliminates the tax certificate program available
to investors in women-and minority-owned firms. The Commission adopted
the tax certificate program in the Fourth Report and Order pursuant to
authority granted in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 1071. Congress has since repealed
Section 1071. As a result, the Commission is compelled to eliminate the
tax certificate provision in the IVDS rules.
32. Petitioner ITV asserts that the unjust enrichment provision for
the transfer of a license obtained using bidding credits should not
apply when the license is assigned or transferred at a loss. Petitioner
also asserts that, when the license is profitably assigned or
transferred, the forfeiture should be based on profits directly
attributable to the license, rather than on the government's cost in
providing the bidding credit.
33. The petition is denied on this issue. The Commission does not
believe that the unjust enrichment provisions should take into account
the profits or losses of particular businesses. The recapture
provisions are designed not only to repay the government for the cost
of the benefit conferred, but also to ensure that the special
provisions adopted for designated entities benefit the parties to whom
they were directed. Special treatment of designated entities is
intended to further the statutory policy of ensuring that these
entities have the opportunity to participate in spectrum-based
services. The repayment provisions the Commission adopted help to
promote the long-term holding of licenses by those parties benefitting
from bidding credits and installment payment provisions.
34. Petitioners RCA and USIN request that rural telephone companies
be provided all the special provisions extended to small businesses and
businesses owned by women or minorities. They assert that the
Communications Act requires that special provisions be provided to
rural telephone companies, and that, without bidding credits and other
special provisions, it is unlikely that IVDS offerings will be
available in rural areas. They further assert that it will take more
than build-out capability for rural telephone companies to provide IVDS
offerings. They maintain the financial ability is required to obtain
the license at auction in the first place.
35. The petitions are denied on this issue. As noted supra, the
Commission has discretion to tailor the use of special provisions as
necessary for each particular service. For IVDS, the Commission expects
that the cost of winning licenses and subsequently building-out systems
will be relatively modest, compared to the costs associated with other
services subject to auctions. Petitioner notes that the Fourth Report
and Order lacks discussion of the expected actual build-out costs of
IVDS systems and the economic characteristics of rural telephone
companies. While the Commission cannot yet determine with precision any
average cost figures for building and operating an IVDS system, it is
familiar with the technical and operational parameters of the service,
and believes its assumption is reasonable that build-out costs will be
modest relative to such costs for other auctionable services. In
addition, the Commission has previously assessed the economic
characteristics of rural telephone companies in this proceeding. As a
result, the Commission expects that rural telephone companies, even
without special provisions, will be able to compete effectively both
during the auction and in providing service.
36. With respect to bidding credits, as discussed infra, the
Commission is proposing to eliminate bidding credits for minority and
women-owned businesses and extend a 25 percent bidding credit to small
businesses only. A rural telephone company would be eligible for the
bidding credit to the extent that it also qualifies as a small
business. The Commission also affirms its decision not to provide
installment payments for those rural telephone companies that are not
also small businesses. The Commission continues to believe that
qualification for installment payments should be limited to businesses
that qualify as small.
37. Further, the Commission anticipates that rural areas will be
served despite the lack of special provisions for rural telephone
companies, because other companies can also serve these areas at
relatively low cost. While rural telephone companies possess
infrastructure that might place them initially at an advantage over
other applicants intending to serve rural areas, they do not, in the
IVDS context, require an additional advantage in the form of a separate
special provision before it is economically advantageous for them to
serve rural customers. Whether or not the Commission establishes
special provisions in this context is not why rural telephone companies
will elect to provide or not provide service to these rural areas.
Therefore, consistent with the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission
denies petitioners' request that it adopt special provisions
specifically for rural telephone companies.
38. Audits. Since the initial IVDS auction, the Commission has
revised the short-form application to place applicants on notice of the
Commission's authority to audit licensees and license applicants. See
Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review. The Commission believes the use of
audits and other enforcement tools is necessary to maintain the
integrity of the self-certification process it has used to the
designated entity provisions. The Commission has specified this
authority in its revised IVDS rules.
39. Long-Form Application. While IVDS applicants have previously
provided their financial information by filing Form 574 as their long-
form application, the Commission now requires that they use Form 600.
See Notice of Public Information Collections Submitted to OMB for
Review and Approval, 61 FR 3699 (February 1, 1996). While Form 600
contains certain instructions that IVDS applicants would be instructed
to ignore, it is a more complete form than the current Form 574.
40. Divestiture Provisions. In establishing rules for IVDS, the
Commission concluded that the best way to promote competition in the
IVDS marketplace is to make at least two licenses available in each
market. Notice of Proposed Rule Making, GEN Docket No. 91-2, 56 FR
10222 (March 11, 1991), 6 FCC Rcd 1368, 1371 (1991). The Commission's
rules therefore
[[Page 49072]]
prohibit an IVDS licensee from acquiring an interest in another IVDS
license in the same service area where it is licensed. 47 CFR
Sec. 95.813(b)(2). The Interactive Television Association (ITA)
requests that the Commission initiate a rule making proceeding to
eliminate this ownership restriction and permit one licensee to own
both licenses in a market. Petitioner ITA maintains that, in view of
several telephone and cable companies' interest in interactive
television, these rules are no longer needed to promote competition.
The Commission declines to grant this petition for rule making at this
time. The Commission observes that the interactive television
marketplace is in a relatively early state of competition. Moreover,
allowing a single entity to acquire both licenses in a service area
would limit the opportunity for other potential competitors to emerge.
Such a result is inconsistent with Congress' mandate to facilitate the
dissemination of licenses among a wide variety of applicants. 47 U.S.C.
309(j)(3)(B).
41. On its own motion, the Commission also clarifies that, where
unintended common attributable ownership interests exist between two
license winners in an IVDS service area, an applicant will be permitted
to divest itself of the prohibited common ownership within 90 days
after license grant. Assuming that the applicant is otherwise
qualified, the Commission will conditionally grant the license if the
winning applicant has submitted a signed statement with its long-form
applications stating its intent to divest. The licensee must then
certify its compliance when timely achieved. In addition, in the event
that a licensee seeks to bid on another license in its market at a
future auction, it may request a waiver of the common ownership
prohibition to bid on the other license. If the licensee then wins the
second license, the licensee must divest itself of its existing license
within 90 days of the grant of the second and is responsible for all
penalty or other amounts that result from these transactions. Any
licensee desiring such a waiver should submit its statement and request
as an attachment to its short-form application.
II. Procedural Matters
42. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 604, the Commission's final analysis for the Sixth Memorandum
Opinion and Order is as follows:
43. Need for and purpose of this action. As a result of new
statutory authority, the Commission may utilize competitive bidding
mechanisms in the granting of certain initial licenses. The Commission
published an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, see generally 5
U.S.C. Sec. 603, within the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this
proceeding (at 8 FCC Rcd 7635, Appendix at 7666 (1993)), and published
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses within the Second Report and
Order and the Fourth Report and Order. As noted in these previous final
analyses, this proceeding will establish a system of competitive
bidding for choosing among certain applications for initial licenses,
and will carry out statutory mandates that certain designated entities,
including small entities, be afforded an opportunity to participate in
the competitive bidding process and in the provision of spectrum-based
services.
44. Summary of the issues raised by the public comments in response
to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As this is an Order on
Reconsideration, there is no initial regulatory flexibility analysis to
which petitioners are responding. There were no petitions which
discussed the final regulatory flexibility analysis in the underlying
order.
45. Significant alternatives considered. Although no comments were
received pertaining to IVDS, the Second Report and Order and Fourth
Report and Order addressed at length the general policy considerations
raised as a result of the Commission's new auction authority.
46. With respect to the Memorandum Opinion and Order reconsidering
the rules, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), in
compliance with 5 U.S.C. Section 801, is provided as follows.
47. This action reconsiders rules previously adopted by the
Commission and is authorized under Section 405 of the Communications
Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 405. Because the action is not generated by a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, there is no applicable Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis to which it responds. However, the
Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Order
conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract with America
Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Public Law No. 104-131, 110 Stat. 847
(1996).
A. Need for and Objective of the Rules
48. This Order adopts rule changes regarding the Commission's
auction of Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS) licenses. The rule
changes are appropriate because laws have changed since the rules were
originally adopted which invalidate some of the provisions, because the
Supreme Court decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S.Ct.
2097 (1995), has affected the Commission's decisions regarding the
level of legal scrutiny that must be met by some of its designated
entity provisions, and because petitions for reconsideration of earlier
orders have caused us to review the rules in a new light. The objective
of the Order is to bring the benefit of the Commission's experience
since the first IVDS auction to subsequent IVDS auctions and to make
opportunities available to small businesses to operate in the service.
The most significant changes being made are: to allow IVDS licenses to
be auctioned using a simultaneous multiple round auction methodology;
to eliminate the tax certificate program for licensees; and to extend
bidding credits to both licenses in each IVDS market.
B. Summary of Issues Raised by Public Comment on the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
49. As this is an Order on Reconsideration, there is no initial
regulatory flexibility analysis to which petitioners are responding.
There were no petitions which discussed the final regulatory
flexibility analysis in the underlying order.
C. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
of the Rules
Authorizing Use of Simultaneous Multiple Round Auctions
50. The Commission, on its own motion, is adopting a rule which
will permit IVDS licenses to be auctioned using a simultaneous multiple
round auction in addition to oral outcry auctions. The Commission is
recommending the use of an oral outcry auction for the RSA and re-
auctioned licenses, but it is trying to add flexibility in the event
that a simultaneous multiple round auction would be more appropriate at
some later point. A simultaneous multiple round auction will allow
remote access to bidding software, auction information, bid submission
and results. This will make it easier for small business operators to
participate in an auction without leaving their places of business.
Also, it will make information concerning the status of the auction
easier to access, which will reduce the administrative burden on
participants in the auction. There are no other reporting,
recordkeeping or compliance changes which would result from this rule
change.
[[Page 49073]]
Elimination of the Tax Certificate Program
51. The Commission had authority under Title 26 of the United
States Code, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 1071, to issue tax certificates to benefit
women and/or minority owned businesses. In 1995, the Congress repealed
section 1071. This rule is being eliminated to comply with the tax
code.
Bidding Credits Extended to Both Licenses in Each MSA
52. The Commission originally wrote its rules to permit a bidding
credit to be awarded to only one auction winner in each MSA.
Originally, a minority- or woman-owned business designated entity
auction winner who did not receive a bidding credit was free to
transfer its license and gain the benefits of a tax certificate. The
auction winner who received a bidding credit was subject to unjust
enrichment penalties if it transferred the license. The tax certificate
acted as the equivalent of a bidding credit, helping an auction winner
attract capital. If the auction winner's license was transferred to a
designated entity, or the winner is a designated entity, the tax
certificate would provide a financial incentive for transacting
business with the designated entity. In the absence of a tax
certificate program, small businesses with gross revenues under the
requisite levels will be eligible for a bidding credit on both licenses
in the MSA. The companies eligible for these bidding credits will have
to provide information to the Commission which establishes that they
meet the qualifications to receive the bidding credit. This reporting
requirement is necessary to avoid fraud on the public.
Long Form Application Changed to Form 600
53. Applicants were required to submit financial information
regarding their qualification to hold a license on an FCC Form 574. The
Commission has secured approval by the Office of Management and Budget
for the use of the FCC Form 600. This form collects more accurate and
complete financial information regarding applicants. As a result, it
helps the Commission ensure that the applicants for licenses are fully
qualified to hold licenses, reducing the amount of time that radio
spectrum would sit unused, if it were subject to legal dispute.
Winning Bidders May Receive Upfront Payment Refund
54. One petitioner, ITV, requested that when upfront money on
deposit exceeded the amount necessary for a winning bidder to make its
down payment the excess funds be refunded to the bidder. The Commission
granted the request to change its rules to alleviate one source of
financial constraints on small businesses. This will not result in any
changed reporting or recordkeeping. It could reduce the need to secure
additional interim financing.
55. All of these changes were made to encourage the participation
of designated entities in the auctions of IVDS licenses, as Section
309(j) of the Communications Act requires.
D. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Subject to the Rules
56. The proposed changes in the regulations would affect a number
of entities both large and small. The Commission was directed by the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j) to make provisions to ensure that
smaller businesses, and other designated entities, have an opportunity
to participate in the auction process. To fulfill this statutory
mandate, these proposed rules are designed to attract participation by
the small entities. The small businesses who will be subject to the
rules would be those which choose to operate interactive video and data
services, a class of wireless communications services with a wide
variety of uses. The services will generally be offered to consumers
who wish to subscribe to those services.
57. IVDS is a communications based service subject to regulation as
a wireless provider of pay television services under Standard
Industrial Classification 4841 (SIC 4841), which covers subscription
television services. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines
small businesses in SIC 4841 as businesses with annual gross revenues
of $11 million or less. 13 CFR Sec. 121.201. In this, the Commission
proposes to extend special provisions to small businesses with annual
gross revenues of $15 million or less and additional benefits to very
small businesses with annual gross revenues of $3 million or less. The
Commission observes that this proposal is consistent with its approach
in other wireless services, see e.g., the 900 MHz specialized mobile
radio service, and is narrowly tailored to address the capital
requirements for IVDS. The Commission is soliciting SBA approval for
the small business definitions for this and other auctionable services.
58. The Commission estimate of the number of small business
entities subject to the rules begins with the Bureau of Census report
on businesses listed under SIC 4841, subscription television services.
The total number of entities under this category is 1,788. There are
1,463 companies in the 1992 Census Bureau report which are categorized
as small businesses providing cable and pay TV services. The Commission
knows that many of these businesses are cable and television service
businesses, rather than IVDS licensees. Therefore, the number of small
entities currently in this business which will be subject to the rules
will be less than 1,463.
59. The first IVDS auction resulted in 170 entities winning
licenses for 594 MSA licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by
entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the
Commission defined a small business as an entity, together with its
affiliates, that has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after
federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more
than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two years.
In the upcoming IVDS reauction of approximately 100 licenses in
metropolitan service area (MSA) markets and auction of 856 licenses in
rural service area (RSA) markets (two licenses per market), bidding
credits and installment payments are available to encourage
participation by small and very small businesses. The Commission cannot
estimate, however, the number of licenses that will be won by entities
qualifying as small or very small businesses under the proposed rules.
Given the success of small businesses in past IVDS auctions, and that
small businesses make up over 80 percent of firms in the subscription
television services industry, the Commission assumes for purposes of
this FRFA that all of the licenses may be awarded to small businesses,
which would be affected by the rules amendments. The Commission
estimates that some companies will win more than one license, as
happened in the earlier IVDS auction.
60. Applicants seeking to participate in the auction also will be
subject to these rule amendments. It is impossible to accurately
predict how many small businesses will apply to participate in the
auction. In the last IVDS auction, there were 289 qualified applicants.
The Commission does not anticipate that there will be significantly
more participants in the subsequent IVDS auction.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Burdens on Small Entities
61. The changes made in Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order are
designed to minimize burdens on small businesses. The extension of an
[[Page 49074]]
additional bidding credit to the second license in each market will
assist businesses owned by women and minorities. Most of the businesses
owned by women and minorities which have participated in the FCC's
auctions are small businesses which will benefit from this rule. This
rule change will benefit small businesses owned by women and minorities
by doubling the number of bidding credits available to them.
62. Refunds of excess upfront payments on deposit will benefit
small businesses. Smaller businesses often have more difficulty in
raising capital. The rules permitted the retention of any excess
upfront payments on deposit with the FCC to apply to down payments or
to bid withdrawal payments. 47 CFR Sec. 1.2106. While an upfront
payment is an important part of ensuring that only serious bidders
participate in the Commission's auction process, it is also important
that small businesses have an opportunity to put their more limited
funds to the best possible use. By assuring the return of excess funds
after the first down payment and any withdrawal penalties are paid,
small businesses will have those funds to use as they wish.
63. By adding an auction methodology, the Commission adds
flexibility to its auction process. One advantage of simultaneous
multiple round auctions is that they can make it possible for bidders
to participate from their own places of business. That is an advantage
under some auction circumstances. The Commission has chosen to use an
oral outcry auction for the RSA license auction, and for the first MSA
licenses which will be re-auctioned, because an oral outcry auction
will be most efficient.
F. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected
Authorizing Use of Simultaneous Multiple Round Auctions
64. The Commission does not currently have plans to use a
simultaneous multiple round auction for this service. The rule is being
added should it become necessary at a later time to re-auction licenses
which have developed a higher degree of interdependence. Because this
rule adds administrative expediency, which will speed the issuance of
licenses, the Commission have chosen to add the option of an additional
auction methodology for this service. The Commission is acting to
minimize delays in the close of an auction by adding flexibility to its
stopping and activity rules. It determined that the alternative of
leaving the rules unchanged could delay the auction process at some
time in the future.
Elimination of the Tax Certificate Program
65. All small businesses which were owned by members of minority
groups or women who choose to participate in the auction for IVDS
licenses will be subject to this rule change. Due to the repeal of the
tax code provision, the Commission has no choice but to eliminate this
provision which benefitted these small businesses.
Bidding Credits Extended on Both Licenses in Each MSA
66. This rule will apply to any small businesses owned by women or
minorities that eligible for bidding credits which participate in the
re-auction of MSA licenses. The Commission considered leaving the rules
unchanged, but in the absence of the tax certificate program, the rules
may have unfairly disadvantaged some minority or women owned small
businesses while offering greater advantages to some of their
competitors. Therefore, in eliminating the tax certificate program, the
Commission felt it necessary to extend the bidding credit to both
licenses in each market. The Commission considered the extension of
bidding credits to rural telephone companies. The Commission is not
required to make all benefits available to all designated entities.
Consequently, in weighing the competing public policy concerns with
respect to bidding credits, the Commission chose not to extend bidding
credits to rural telephone companies.
Long-Form Application Changed to Form 600
67. This rule will enable the Commission to more effectively
evaluate applications filed for IVDS licenses. The Commission did not
consider alternatives because in adapting its processes to auctions,
the Commission has concentrated on reducing the number of different
forms and steps that auction participants will have to master to
participate in the process. Because all other auctionable services have
shifted to the Form 600, IVDS auction participants will be able to use
information they may have filed for other auctionable services in any
future IVDS auctions as well.
Winning Bidders May Receive Upfront Payment Refund
68. The rules previously did not make clear that an auction winner
could receive a refund of any excess monies on deposit with the FCC,
after payment of the first down payment and any penalties due. This
rule change was made to ensure that businesses which win IVDS licenses
have as much capital available to build systems and serve the public as
possible. Because the rule change results in returning money to
businesses, the Commission did not consider alternatives in making this
change.
G. Commission's Outreach Efforts to Learn of and Respond to the Views
of Small Entities Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 609
69. The Commission did not seek specific comments regarding small
entities' views of the rules being changed because the petitions and
comments were filed in this proceeding prior to the enactment of the
1996 Regulatory Flexibility Act Amendments. However, the Commission, in
making changes to the rules, has sought to alleviate burdens on small
businesses. When Congress authorized the FCC to use auctions, it
instructed the FCC to make provisions for designated entities,
including small businesses, when it designed competitive bidding
mechanisms.
H. Report to Congress
70. The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, along with this Memorandum Opinion and Order, in
a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 4 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of
this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.
71. Authority for issuance of this Sixth Memorandum Opinion and
Order is contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 303(r)
and 309(j).
72. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of
Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 303(r), and 309(j), this Sixth
Memorandum Opinion and Order is adopted, and Parts 1 and 95 of the
Commission's Rules are AMENDED as set forth below.
73. It is further ordered that the rule changes made herein will
become effective November 18, 1996. It is further ordered that, as
described above, the petition for reconsideration filed by ITV is
granted in part to the extent described above and is denied in all
other respects, the petitions for reconsideration filed by Phase One,
RCA, and USIN are denied, and the
[[Page 49075]]
petition for rule making filed by ITA is denied.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 95
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Parts 1 and 95 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303, and 309(j) unless otherwise
noted.
2. Section 1.2107 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.2107 Submission of down payment and filing of long-form
applications.
* * * * *
(c) A high bidder that meets its down payment obligations in a
timely manner must, within ten (10) business days after being notified
that it is a high bidder, submit an additional application (the ``long-
form application'') pursuant to the rules governing the service in
which the applicant is the high bidder (unless it has already submitted
such an application, as contemplated by Sec. 1.2105(a)(1)(b). For
example, if the applicant is high bidder for a license in the
Interactive Video Data Service (see 47 CFR part 95, subpart F), the
long-form application will be submitted on FCC Form 600 in accordance
with Sec. 95.815 of this chapter. Notwithstanding any other provision
in title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations to the contrary, high
bidders need not submit an additional application filing fee with their
long-form applications. Notwithstanding any other provision in title 47
of the Code of Federal Regulations to the contrary, the high bidder's
long-form application must be mailed or otherwise delivered to: Office
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Attention: Auction
Application Processing Section, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 222,
Washington, DC 20554. An applicant that fails to submit the required
long-form application as required under this subsection, and fails to
establish good cause for any late-filed submission, shall be deemed to
have defaulted and will be subject to the penalties set forth in
Sec. 1.2104.
* * * * *
PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES
1. The Authority Citation for part 95 continues to read as follows.
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 154, 303.
2. Section 95.815 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d)(2),
and (f)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 95. 815 License application.
* * * * *
(b) Each application for an IVDS system license must be made on a
separate FCC Form 600, and must be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission, Interactive Video and Data Service, P.O. Box
358365, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-5365. Each application for a CTS license
where the CTS antenna exceeds 6.1m (20 feet) (see Sec. 95.811(b)) must
be made on a separate FCC Form 574, and must be submitted to the
address set forth in Sec. 1.1102 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) A completed application (FCC Form 600).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) A separate application (FCC Form 600) for each CTS that is
being added or modified.
* * * * *
3. Section 95.816 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2),
(c)(4), (c)(6), and (d)(1); removing paragraph (d)(2); and
redesignating paragraph (d)(3) as (d)(2) and revising it; and adding
new paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 95.816 Competitive bidding proceedings.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Competitive bidding design options and mechanisms. The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau will select competitive bidding design(s) and
mechanisms in accordance with Secs. 1.2103 and 1.2104 of this chapter.
If simultaneous multiple round bidding is used, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau has the discretion to vary the duration of
the bidding rounds or the interval at which bids are accepted at any
time before or during the course of the auction.
(2) Forms.
(i) Applicants must submit short-form applications (FCC Form 175)
as specified in Commission Public Notices. Minor deficiencies may be
corrected prior to the auction. Major modifications such as changes in
ownership, failure to sign an application or failure to submit required
certifications will result in the dismissal of the application. See
1.2105(a) and (b) of this chapter.
(ii) Applicants must submit a long-form application (FCC Form 600)
within ten (10) business days after being notified that it is the
winning bidder for a license. See 1.2107(c) and (d) of this chapter.
* * * * *
(4) Down payments. See Sec. 1.2107(b) of this chapter.
* * * * *
(6) Withdrawal, default or disqualification. See Secs. 1.2104(g)
and 1.2109 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a business
owned by women and/or minorities may use a bidding credit of twenty
five (25) percent to lower the cost of its winning bid.
(2) Installment payments. Each licensee that qualifies as a small
business may pay the remaining 80 percent of the net auction price in
quarterly installment payments pursuant to Sec. 1.2110(e) of this
chapter. Licensees who qualify for installment payments are entitled to
pay their winning bid amount in installments over the term of the
license, with interest charges to be fixed at the time of licensing at
a rate equal to the rate for five-year U.S. Treasury obligations.
Payments shall include interest only for the first two years and
payments of interest and principal amortized over the remaining three
years of the license term. A license issued to an eligible small
business that elects installment payments shall be conditioned on the
full and timely performance of the license holder's quarterly payments.
(3) Audits.
(i) Applicants and licensees claiming eligibility under this
section shall be subject to audits by the Commission, using in-house
and contract resources. Selection for audit may be random, on
information, or on the basis of other factors.
(ii) Consent to such audits is part of the certification included
in the short-form application (Form 175). Such consent shall include
consent to the audit of the applicant's or licensee's books, documents,
and other material (including accounting procedures and practices)
regardless of form or type,
[[Page 49076]]
sufficient to confirm that such applicant's or licensee's
representations are, and remain, accurate. Such consent shall include
inspection at all reasonable times of the facilities, or parts thereof,
engaged in providing and transacting business, or keeping records
regarding licensed IVDS and shall also include consent to the interview
of principals, employees, customers and suppliers of the applicant or
licensee.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-23939 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23925 Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Rule on the Establishment of a Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day for the 1996-97 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Season
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49232-49235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23925]
[[Page 49231]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 20
Establishment of a Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day for the 1996-97
Migratory Game Bird Hunting Season; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 18, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49232]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AD69
Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Rule on the Establishment of a
Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day for the 1996-97 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Season
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service)
proposed in an earlier document (August 15, 1996, Federal Register 61
FR 42500) the establishment of a special youth waterfowl hunting day
for the 1996-97 duck-hunting season. This final rule contains final
frameworks for the special youth waterfowl hunting day from which
States may select season dates, limits, and other options for the 1996-
97 duck-hunting seasons. The effect of this final rule is to facilitate
the selection of a youth hunting day by the States to further the
annual establishment of the migratory bird hunting regulations. State
selections will be published in the Federal Register as amendments to
Sec. 20.105 of title 50 CFR part 20.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule takes effect on September 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: States should send their season selections to: Chief, Office
of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, ms 634--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20240. The public may inspect comments during normal
business hours in room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-
1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations Schedule for 1996
On March 22, 1996, the Service published in the Federal Register
(61 FR 11992) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal dealt
with the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for
migratory game birds under Secs. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and
20.110 of subpart K. On June 13, 1996, the Service published in the
Federal Register (61 FR 30114) a second document providing supplemental
proposals for early- and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations
frameworks, detailing information on the 1996-97 regulatory schedule,
and announcing the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and
Flyway Council meetings. On June 14, 1996, the Service published in the
Federal Register (61 FR 30490) a third document describing the
Service's proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1996-97 duck hunting
season and the Service's consideration of a proposed youth waterfowl
hunting day. On August 15, 1996, the Service published in the Federal
Register (61 FR 42500) a proposal for the establishment of a special
youth waterfowl hunting day.
This rulemaking prescribes the final framework for establishing a
youth waterfowl hunting day for the 1996-97 migratory bird hunting
season. The Service considered all comments received to date.
Written Comments Received
The Service's June 14 Federal Register contained a notice of
consideration and preliminary guidelines for establishing a special
youth waterfowl hunting day and opened a public comment period. The
Service received 145 comments specifically addressing the establishment
of a youth waterfowl hunting day. Comments, responses to comments, and
modifications to the preliminary guidelines were announced in the
August 15 Federal Register proposed rulemaking. The public comment
period on the proposed rule closed on August 26, 1996. As of August 30,
1996, the Service had received an additional 15 comments on the
proposed youth waterfowl hunting day. Comments and modifications to the
proposed guidelines announced in the August 15 Federal Register are
discussed below. The headings correspond to the numbered items in the
March 22 Federal Register.
1. Ducks
G. Special Seasons/Species Management
Written Comments: The Ohio Division of Wildlife commended the
Service for its proposal to provide a special day of hunting for young
hunters.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission (Pennsylvania) fully supported the
concept of a youth waterfowl hunting day. They believed a day devoted
for youth to experience and learn about waterfowl hunting would serve
to foster involvement and support for waterfowl conservation. They
further believed that youth should be encouraged to participate in
these activities and that the continued conservation of all migratory
birds depends on the future attitudes and actions of youth. While they
supported the Service's proposed guidelines, Pennsylvania requested
that licensing requirements for the accompanying adult be left to the
discretion of the individual State. They also requested the Service
thoroughly evaluate harvest and hunter activity resulting from the
special youth hunt.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (Arkansas) was pleased that
the Service had proceeded with the youth hunting day initiative for the
1996-97 season and expected that the experiences shared by the
participants would increase the appreciation for natural resources.
However, Arkansas requested that the guidelines for selecting a youth
hunting day include primary and secondary school vacation days as well
as weekends and holidays.
The Georgia Wildlife Resources Division (Georgia) and the South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources (South Carolina) also
supported the special youth hunt concept, but were concerned about the
Service's proposed age limitation. While both States understood the age
requirements imposed by the Federal migratory waterfowl hunting stamp,
Georgia believed that the Service's proposed youth participation age of
15 or younger would serve to complicate an already complex issue. Both
States recommended final frameworks that allow States to select the
most appropriate participation age.
An individual from Wisconsin supported the proposal for a special
youth waterfowl hunting day, citing the educational opportunities for
young people to experience safe, high-quality waterfowl hunting.
An individual from Minnesota expressed concern about youth hunters
scaring birds, which would then not be available for the opening day of
the regular duck season. Further, he supported allowing the
accompanying adult to carry a gun to facilitate the pursuit of crippled
birds.
Another individual from Minnesota opposed establishing a special
youth hunt because of the special status granted youth, the disruption
of the regular season opening, and the potential abuses of the special
hunt by accompanying adults.
The Animal Care and Welfare (ACW), two individuals from Virginia,
one person from New York, one individual from Wisconsin, and one person
from California opposed the establishment of a special youth hunting
day. Collectively, they believed the Service should represent the views
of both hunters and nonhunters. The ACW and two of the commenters
believed the
[[Page 49233]]
Service was acting as a public relations recruiting firm for hunters.
They believed the Service should encourage youths to participate in
nonconsumptive wildlife recreation, such as wildlife photography,
rather than hunting. Several commenters also noted that the mallard
population slightly decreased last year and as such, believed it
biologically reckless of the Service to increase hunting pressure.
The Fund for Animals, Inc. (FFA) opposed the establishment of a
youth waterfowl hunting day and protested the public and regulatory
process under which the Service was considering the proposal. FFA
objected to the short public comment period and believed the Service
had already decided to implement the proposal and was merely going
through the motions of public comment to satisfy legal requirements.
Further, FFA believed the Service lumped comments together and did not
adequately discuss or respond to comments of opposition in the August
15 proposed rule. Such action, FFA argued, suggests the Service does
not consider ethical and moral concerns deserving of serious
consideration. The FFA also questioned States actions of setting season
dates and bag limits based on the Service's proposed frameworks and
urged the Service to issue regulations prohibiting States from
anticipating Service actions. The FFA stated that this practice
reflected adversely on the integrity and credibility of the Service's
rulemaking process. The FFA urged the Service to extend the comment
period and to hold public hearings specifically on this initiative.
The FFA also objected to the Service's proposed youth hunt for
social, moral, and ethical reasons. FFA believed the promotion of youth
hunting was not an appropriate endeavor for the Federal government. FFA
argued the Service should not encourage violence and killing, but
should teach children to be kind to animals. As an alternative, the FFA
proposed the Service sponsor a youth waterfowl photography day, arguing
that such a day would have broader public support. Further, FFA
commented that inexperienced youth hunters would result in a higher
bird wounding rate and that the Service should establish a minimum
participation age of 14 or 15. Lastly, FFA noted that since the
recovery of the duck population was still questionable, there should be
no increase in harvest.
Service Response: The Service appreciates the comments and
suggestions of the various States, organizations, and individuals
regarding the establishment of a youth waterfowl hunting day. While the
Service recognizes there are organizations and individuals opposed to
this proposal on the basis of general opposition to hunting, the
Service believes recreational sport hunting is a wise and compatible
use of our nation's renewable natural resources. As the Service
previously stated, we recognize the valuable contributions of both
hunters and non-hunters to natural resource conservation. However, the
Service is mandated by various legislation to provide for the long-term
conservation of migratory birds and, to regulate the hunting of
migratory birds, including waterfowl. The Service encourages youth
participation in all wildlife-oriented recreational activity, non-
consumptive as well as consumptive.
Traditionally, the Service has viewed its role as including the
permitting of recreational harvest opportunities consistent with long-
term resource conservation for all Americans. To meet this objective,
the Service believes a well-educated and properly trained hunting
constituency is in the best interest of long-term resource
conservation. Thus, the Service views the establishment of a youth
hunting day as a unique educational opportunity which will help ensure
safe, high-quality hunting for future generations of Americans. The
Service's intent is not to recruit youth hunters, but to provide the
best and safest learning environment for our youth who are interested
in hunting.
Further, the Service believes establishing such a day is consistent
with our responsibility to provide general education and training in
the wise use of our nation's valuable wildlife resources. The Service
believes the long-term conservation of North America's migratory bird
resources depends on the future attitudes and actions of today's youth
and that the special youth day will assist in the formation and
development of a conservation ethic in future generations. The
Service's intent in establishing this special day is to introduce youth
to the concepts of ethical utilization and stewardship of waterfowl and
other natural resources, encourage youngsters and adults to experience
the outdoors together, and contribute to the long-term conservation of
the migratory bird resource.
While the Service understands the various comments from the States
regarding the age requirements of the participating youth and FFA's
request to establish a minimum participating age, we continue to
believe that any age criteria should be consistent with previous
definitions of youth hunters established in other Federal legislation.
Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1934, a youth is defined
as a person less than 16 years of age. To maintain consistency and to
avoid confusion in this initial trial year, the Service believes that
this definition should be employed for the youth hunting day. However,
the Service is committed to working with the States and the Flyway
Councils on this criterion prior to any proposed youth hunt next year.
Regarding Arkansas' request that guidelines for selecting a youth
day include school vacation days, the inclusion of primary and
secondary school vacation days seems logical and meets the Service's
original intent of affording the maximum opportunity for participation
by youth hunters. Thus, the Service has revised the final guidelines
accordingly to reflect this modification.
Regarding FFA's comment on the abbreviated comment period and their
request for an extension, the Service reminds them that the rulemaking
process for migratory game bird hunting operates under severe time
constraints. However, the Service has repeatedly stated that it intends
that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment.
Thus, when the Service announced its intent to consider establishing a
youth waterfowl hunting day in the June 14 Federal Register and its
proposal for a youth day in the August 15 Federal Register, the Service
established what it believed were the longest periods possible for
public comment and input. In light of the fact that the Service sought
and received significant public comment in the development and
establishment of this special youth hunt, we believe that allowing a
comment period past the already established closing date is contrary to
the public interest. Further, extending the comment period would not
allow the States sufficient time to select season dates, to communicate
those selections to the Service, and to establish and publicize the
regulations and procedures necessary to implement their decisions. The
Service has given every consideration to the comments and has decided
to finalize the proposal for the reasons stated. Because it has
provided the two comment periods referred to above, the Service
believes it has provided adequate opportunity for public comment and
has decided not to extend the comment period or hold public hearings.
To do so would delay this beneficial resource-oriented educational
opportunity.
Regarding FFA's belief that the Service lumped comments together
and
[[Page 49234]]
did not provide adequate discussion or response, the Service indicates
for the record that it considered all comments received on both the
notice of consideration and the proposed rule. Time, space, and costs
prevent us from providing an individual response to each commenter on
duplicative issues.
With regard to FFA's comment on State adoption of its own
regulations based on anticipated Federal final action, we note that
States take those actions on their own with the risk that they may have
to amend their regulations if the Federal final action differs from the
proposal. The Service is in no way bound by or constrained by such
State action.
Several commenters incorrectly noted that duck populations slightly
decreased from last year, and as such, the Service should not increase
hunting pressure. The Service notes that the 1996 estimate of total
ducks in the traditional survey area was 37.5 million, an increase of 5
percent from that in 1995 and 16 percent higher than the long-term
average. Further, the total duck fall flight forecast is approximately
89.5 million birds, compared to 77 million last year. This estimate is
the highest recorded since calculations were initiated in 1970 and 16
percent higher than last year. Because the special 1-day hunt would be
limited to youths, the Service believes that waterfowl populations can
support the additional harvest.
The Service will continue to evaluate this opportunity annually,
including an assessment of possible expansion and the need for
additional criteria. The Service believes this opportunity should be
offered during the 1996-97 hunting season and that further dialogue and
refinements can be incorporated in future years.
Therefore, the Service is establishing the following guidelines for
the 1996-97 season:
1. States may select 1 day per duck-hunting zone, designated as
``Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day'', in addition to their regular duck
seasons.
2. The day must be held outside any regular duck season on
either a weekend, holiday, or other non-school day when youth
hunters would have the maximum opportunity to participate.
3. The day could be held up to 10 days before or after any
regular duck-season frameworks or within any split of a regular duck
season.
4. The daily bag limit may include ducks, mergansers, coots,
moorhens, and gallinules and would be the same as that allowed in
the regular season. Flyway species restrictions would remain in
effect.
5. Youth hunters must be 15 years of age or younger.
6. An adult at least 18 years of age must accompany the youth
hunter into the field. This adult could not duck hunt but may
participate in other seasons that are open on the special youth day.
7. The special youth hunt day will be considered a trial for the
1996-97 season and will be evaluated by the Service.
NEPA Consideration
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document,
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with EPA on June 9, 1988. The Service published a Notice
of Availability in the June 16, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 22582).
The Service published its Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR
31341). Copies of these documents are available from the Service at the
address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
As in the past, the Service designs hunting regulations to remove
or alleviate chances of conflict between migratory game bird hunting
seasons and the protection and conservation of endangered and
threatened species. Consultations have been conducted to ensure that
actions resulting from these regulations will not likely jeopardize the
continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat.
Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion
and may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously
proposed. The final frameworks reflect any modifications. The Service's
biological opinions resulting from its Section 7 consultation are
public documents available for public inspection in the Service's
Division of Endangered Species and MBMO, at the address indicated under
the caption ADDRESSES.
Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the
Paperwork Reduction Act
In the March 22, 1996, Federal Register, the Service reported
measures it took to comply with requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and E.O. 12866. One measure was to prepare a Small
Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) documenting the significant
beneficial economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
The Analysis estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend between
$254 and $592 million at small businesses in 1996. Copies of the
Analysis are available upon request from the Office of Migratory Bird
Management. This rule was not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.
The Service examined these proposed regulations under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found no information collection requirements.
Regulations Promulgation
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its
nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, the Service
intends that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to
comment on the regulations. Thus, when the proposed rulemaking was
published, the Service established what it believed were the longest
periods possible for public comment. In doing this, the Service
recognized that when the comment period closed, time would be of the
essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these
regulations after this final rulemaking, the States would have
insufficient time to select season dates; to communicate those
selections to the Service; and to establish and publicize the necessary
regulations and procedures to implement their decisions.
Therefore, the Service, under authority of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended, (16 U.S.C. 703-711), prescribes
final frameworks setting forth the species to be hunted, the daily bag
and possession limits, the shooting hours, the season lengths, the
earliest opening and latest closing season dates, and hunting areas,
from which State conservation agency officials may select hunting
season dates and other options. Upon receipt of season and option
selections from these officials, the Service will publish in the
Federal Register a final rulemaking amending 50 CFR part 20 to reflect
seasons, limits, and shooting hours for the conterminous United States
for the 1996-97 season.
The Service therefore finds that ``good cause'' exists, within the
terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and
these frameworks will, therefore, take effect immediately upon
publication.
Unfunded Mandates
The Service has determined and certifies in compliance with the
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that
this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on local or State government or private entities.
[[Page 49235]]
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in
Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 1996-97
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712, and 16 U.S.C.
742 a--j.
Dated: September 11, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-23925 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23902 Contracts and Grants; School Construction; Special Grants to Small Tribes; Removal of Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49059-49060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23902]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Parts 271, 272, 274, 277, and 278
RIN 1076-AD53
Contracts and Grants; School Construction; Special Grants to
Small Tribes; Removal of Regulations
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs is eliminating of 25 CFR Parts
271, 272, 274, 277 and 278 as mandated by Executive Order 12866 to
streamline the regulatory process and enhance the planning and
coordination of new and existing regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Thomas, Division of Self-
Determination Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the
Interior, Room 4627, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone
(202) 208-3708.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 3, 1996, at 61 FR 27833, the Bureau
published a proposed rule to eliminate 25 CFR Part 274, School
Construction Contracts or Services for Tribally Operated Previously
Private Schools; Part 277, School Construction Contracts for Public
Schools; and Part 278, Special
[[Page 49060]]
Grants for Economic Development and Core Management Grants to Small
Tribes. These rules are no longer necessary, as they are being replaced
by the new 25 CFR part 900, which implements the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act. We received no comments in
response to the proposed rule.
The authority to issue rules and regulations is vested in the
Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and sections 463 and 465 of
the Revised Statutes, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9.
This final rule has an effective date of less than 30 days after
publication so that it may become effective as close as possible to the
effective date of the new rule at 25 CFR part 900. Since part 900
replaces the parts eliminated by this rule, an earlier effective date
will minimize the period during which two conflicting rules are in
effect at the same time. This will minimize potential confusion among
the users of the rules.
Executive Order 12988
The Department has certified to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) that these proposed regulations meet the applicable standards
provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Executive Order 12630
The Department has determined that this rule does not have
significant ``takings'' implications. The rule does not pertain to
``taking'' of private property interests, nor does it affect private
property.
Executive Order 12612
The Department has determined that this rule does not have
significant Federalism effects because it pertains solely to Federal-
tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights and
responsibilities of states.
NEPA Statement
The Department has determined that this rule does not constitute a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment and that no detailed statement is required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
This rule imposes no unfunded mandates on any governmental or
private entity and is in compliance with the provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Act of 1995.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule has been examined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 and has been found to contain no information collection
requirements.
Drafting Information: The primary author of this document is
Kimberly Toyekoyah, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the
Interior.
List of Subjects in
25 CFR Part 271
Indians--tribal government, Indians--contracting.
25 CFR Part 272
Indians--tribal government, Indians--grants.
25 CFR Parts 274 and 277
Indians--school construction.
25 CFR Part 278
Indians--special grants for economic development--core management
grants.
Under the authority of Executive Order 12866, and for the reasons
stated above, the Parts 271, 272, 274, 277 and 278 are removed from 25
CFR Chapter I.
Dated: August 21, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-23902 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23896 Extension of Port Limits of Columbus, Ohio
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49058-49059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23896]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
19 CFR Part 101
[T.D. 96-67]
Extension of Port Limits of Columbus, Ohio
AGENCY: Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Customs Regulations pertaining to the
field organization of Customs by extending the geographical limits of
the port of Columbus, Ohio, to include Rickenbacker International
Airport, which is currently operating as a user fee airport. The
boundary expansion of the Columbus port has occurred because of
increased business at Rickenbacker International Airport. The Customs
Regulations are also being amended to remove Rickenbacker International
Airport's designation as a user fee airport. This change is being made
as part of Customs continuing program to obtain more efficient use of
its personnel, facilities, and resources and to provide better service
to carriers, importers, and the general public.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Denning, Office of Field
Operations, (202) 927-0196.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
As part of a continuing program to obtain more efficient use of its
personnel, facilities, and resources, and to provide better service to
carriers, importers, and the general public, Customs is amending
Sec. 101.3, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 101.3), by extending the
geographical limits of the port of Columbus, Ohio, to include the
territory encompassing Rickenbacker International Airport, which is
currently a user fee airport.
Enough business has shifted from within the port to Rickenbacker
International Airport to make it worthwhile for Customs to include the
airport within the Columbus port boundaries. Customs even plans to
relocate its offices to Rickenbacker International Airport.
The Customs Regulations are also being amended to remove
Rickenbacker International Airport from the list of user fee airports
in Sec. 122.15, Customs Regulations. Customs will use existing staffing
to service the expanded area of the port of Columbus, Ohio.
Comments and Analysis
A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal
Register (61 FR 8001) on March 1, 1996, which discussed the proposed
extension of the Port of Columbus. As a result of the NPRM, two
comments were received.
The comments were from the Columbus Airport Authority and the
Department of Trade and Development of the City of Columbus. The
comments do not oppose the extension of the port limits of the Port of
Columbus, but they are concerned with maintaining the level of Customs
services at Port Columbus International Airport.
The Columbus Airport Authority, which operates Port Columbus
International Airport where the Customs offices are currently located,
requests assurances that there will be no lowering of the current level
of services. It also wishes the Customs Service to provide the required
services for a projected growth in international flights.
The Department of Trade and Development comment explores the
planned long term development of Port Columbus International Airport.
The airport expects growth in international service as a result of
recent negotiations involving the potential Canadian market for flights
to Columbus and as part of its
[[Page 49059]]
membership in the United States Airports for Better International Air
Service. At the same time, the Department is involved in expanding the
capabilities of Rickenbacker International Airport. The Department is
concerned with the long term economic viability of both airports.
The Customs Service wishes to emphasize that the extension of the
Port of Columbus limits to include Rickenbacker International Airport
and the move of the port Customs office to Rickenbacker International
Airport will not affect Customs service at either airport. Rickenbacker
International Airport was a designated user fee airport. Now that the
extension of the Port of Columbus is final, the airport will get
regular Customs service. The Port Columbus International Airport will
continue to receive its regular Customs service.
The Customs Service assures both commenters that there will be no
change in the level of Customs service at either facility. Furthermore,
Customs anticipates that it will be able to provide sufficient
resources to process the increase in workload foreseen by the
commenters.
Conclusion
Inasmuch as the comments are favorable toward the change as long as
the current levels of Customs service are maintained and Customs
anticipates no change in the level of service at either Rickenbacker
International Airport or the Port Columbus International Airport,
Customs is proceeding with the amendment.
Port Limits
The previous port limits of the port of Columbus, Ohio, established
in Treasury Decision (T.D.) 82-9, included all of the territory within
the corporate limits of Columbus, Ohio, all of the territory completely
surrounded by the city of Columbus, and all of the territory enclosed
by Interstate Highway 270 (outer belt), which completely surrounds the
city.
The expanded port limits of Columbus, Ohio, encompass the port
limits set forth in T.D. 82-9 as well as the following territory:
Beginning at the intersection of Rohr and Lockbourne Roads, then
proceeding southerly along Lockbourne Road to Commerce Street,
thence easterly along Commerce Street to its intersection with the N
& W railroad tracks, then southerly along the N & W railroad tracks
to the Franklin-Pickaway County line, thence easterly along the
Franklin-Pickaway County line to its intersection with Pontius Road,
then northerly along Pontius Road to its intersection with Rohr
Road, thence westerly along Rohr Road to its intersection with
Lockbourne Road, the point of beginning, all within the County of
Franklin, State of Ohio.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866
Customs routinely establishes, expands, and consolidates Customs
ports of entry throughout the United States to accommodate the volume
of Customs-related activity in various parts of the country. Thus,
although this document is being issued with notice for public comment,
because it relates to agency management and organization, it is not
subject to the notice and public procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C.
553. Accordingly, this document is not subject to the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Agency organization matters such as this proposed port extension
are exempt from consideration under Executive Order 12866.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document was Janet L. Johnson,
Regulations Branch. However, personnel from other offices participated
in its development.
List of Subjects
19 CFR Part 101
Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Organization and
functions (Government agencies).
19 CFR Part 122
Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft,
Airports, Customs duties and inspection, Freight, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Amendments to the Regulations
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 101 and part 122 of
the Customs Regulations are amended as set forth below.
PART 101--GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The general authority citation for part 101 and the specific
authority citation for Sec. 101.3 continue to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General Note 20,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624.
Sections 101.3 and 101.4 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1 and 58b;
* * * * *
Sec. 101.3 [Amended]
2. Section 101.3(b)(1) is amended by removing the reference ``T.D.
82-9'' in the ``Limits of port'' column adjacent to the entry of
Columbus in the ``Ports of entry'' column under the state of Ohio and
by adding the reference ``T.D. 96-67'' in its place.
PART 122--AIR COMMERCE REGULATIONS
1. The general authority citation for part 122 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1433, 1436, 1459,
1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644; 49 U.S.C. App. 1509.
Sec. 122.15 [Amended]
2. The list of user fee airports in Sec. 122.15(b) is amended by
removing ``Columbus, Ohio'' from the left column labelled ``Location''
and by removing ``Rickenbacker Airport'' from the adjacent right column
labelled ``Name.''
George J. Weise,
Commissioner of Customs.
Approved: August 29, 1996.
Dennis M. O'Connell,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 96-23896 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23874 Program for Qualifying Department of Defense (DOD), Air Freight Forwarders
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49060-49063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23874]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
32 CFR Part 619
Program for Qualifying Department of Defense (DOD), Air Freight
Forwarders
AGENCY: Military Traffic Management Command, DOD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule adds qualification standards for Air Freight
Forwarders and establishes a change in the basic agreement between the
Military Traffic Management Command and Air Freight Forwarders
requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Headquarters, Military Traffic Management Command, ATTN:
MTOP-QQ, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-5050.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rick Wirtz, telephone: 703-681-6393.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
a. Background
Basic information on the Carrier Qualification Program was
previously published in the Federal Register, 53 FR 17970, 54 FR 27667,
55 FR 7361, 55 FR 52976 and 56 FR 45895 and 57 FR 11376.
b. Comments and Responses
Comment: Carrier objected to providing a list of carriers with who
they contract, as per paragraph 609.6 of the proposed rule.
Response: MTMC requires this information in the event the carrier
abandons or frustrates the shipment in order to maintain the control to
overrule negative decisions made by the forwarders, if the need should
arise.
Comment: MTMC should not be able to direct forwarders as to which
carriers they can and cannot use.
Response: MTMC is ultimately responsible for the safe and timely
delivery of all DOD cargo. In that capacity this organization retains
the authority to approve or disapprove all carriers hauling federal
freight.
Comment: In general, Air Freight Forwarders do not operate vehicles
and therefore do not normally carry Public Liability Insurance.
Response: Code of Federal Regulations 49 387.9 states carriers for
hire in interstate or foreign commerce (property) must maintain a
minimum limit of $750,000. Due to the volume of carriers that
forwarders do business with, MTMC requires $1,000,000 in liability
insurance. All carriers participating in the movement of DOD freight
will provide this minimum.
Comment: Rules must reflect the fact that Air Freight Forwarders
operate on a released-value basis and do not provide full-value
protection, unless additional transportation charges are paid.
Response: MTMC requires $250,000 per shipment cargo insurance.
Again, due to the high volume of carriers providing transportation
services for the forwarders.
Comment: Performance bonds are redundant since cargo losses and
damages are covered under cargo insurance, and on-time delivery is
covered by reduction in rates to service provided.
Response: The bond secures performance and fulfillment of the
[[Page 49061]]
carrier obligation to deliver DOD freight to destination. It will cover
DOD reprocurement costs as a result of carrier default, abandoned
shipments or bankruptcy. The bond will not be utilized for operational
problems such as late pickup or delivery, excessive transit time,
refusals, no shows, improper/inadequate equipment or claims for lost or
damaged cargo.
Comment: If the forwarder changes his name, the SCAC code is
nullified and the forwarder can no longer participate. All of the other
requirements for notice are really not pertinent and place a paperwork
burden on both the forwarder and the Government.
Response: The NMFTA will, in fact, allow a carrier to change their
company name and still retain the original SCAC. However, HQMTMC does
not allow this within the carrier qualification program.
Comment: Pursuit of claims under Interstate Commerce Act needs
clarification as the Air Freight Forwarders Association is not familiar
with these claims procedures.
Response: An Air Freight Forwarder, whether domestic or
international, is by statute and regulation, an indirect air carrier
and hence is liable as a common carrier.
Executive Order 12219
This rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12291 and the
Secretary of the Army has classified this action as non major. The
effect of the rule on the economy will be less than $100 million.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Secretary of the Army has
certified that this action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The objective of the program is
to ensure that DOD obtains safe, dependable, and reliable
transportation services. The requirements are not designed to preclude
participation by small businesses. Rather, they are part of a mechanism
designed to ensure that traffic offered to small businesses does not
exceed their capabilities. The program's reporting and recordkeeping
requirements are essentially administrative in nature and do not demand
significant expenditures of resources such as personnel, computer
equipment, or software. No professional or technical training is
necessary to comply with these requirements. Alternatives to facilitate
entry of small businesses have been identified and implemented.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule is approved by the Office of Management and Budget as
required under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3507).
List of Subjects in CFR Part 619
Common carriers, Freight, Motor vehicle, Safety, Shipping, Trucks.
Accordingly, part 619 of title 32 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended by the following changes:
1. The authority citation for part 619 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1801-1813, 2503, 2505, 2509.
2. Section 619.1 is amended by revising the first sentence to read
as follows:
Sec. 619.1 Introduction.
Carriers, surface freight forwarders, shipper agents, and air
freight forwarders interested in or remaining qualified will submit
data described in Secs. 619.2 through 619.6 to the appropriate area
command (Bayonne, NJ or Oakland, CA) based on the location of the
carrier's headquarters. * * *
* * * * *
3. Section 619.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),
introductory text, and (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 619.4 Insurance-public liability and cargo.
(a) Public liability. Motor carriers, surface freight forwarders,
shipper agents and air freight forwarders will submit proof of public
liability to MTMC on a certificate of insurance form issued by the
insurance company. Expiration dates will not be reflected on the
certificate, the policy must be continuous until canceled. However, the
deductible portion will be shown on the certificate. The insurance
underwriters must be rated in Best's Insurance Guide, or listed in the
Fiscal Service Treasury Department Circular 570, Listing of Surety
Companies. The certificate holder block of the form will indicate that
HQMTMC, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-5050, ATTN:
MTOP-QQ, will be notified, in writing, 30 days in advance of any change
or cancellation. The public liability requirements are specified in 49
CFR 387.9. Surface freight forwarders and shipper agents will submit
proof of $1 million public liability (death and bodily injury, property
damage, and environment restoration).
(b) Cargo. Motor common carriers, surface freight forwarders,
shipper agents and air freight forwarders must have their insurance
company provide a certificate of insurance form. The deductible portion
will be shown on the certificate. The insurance underwriter must have a
policyholder's rating in the Best's Insurance Guide, listed in the
Fiscal Service Treasury Department Circular 570, Listing of Surety
Companies or specifically approved by HQMTMC. DOD's minimum cargo
insurance requirements are listed below.
* * * * *
(5) Surface freight forwarders, shipper agents and air freight
forwarders--$250,000 per shipment.
4. Section 619.6 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (k) as follows:
Sec. 619.6 Information.
Motor carriers, surface freight forwarders and shipper agents will
provide HQMTMC the following information.
* * * * *
(k) In addition to information contained in (a) through (h) and (j)
above, exempt surface freight forwarders, shipper agents and air
freight forwarders must furnish a listing of the carriers which they
have contract with and intend to use in the movement of government
shipments. Information must include the complete company name, company
officials to include their position and title, home office address,
telephone number, 24-hour emergency point of contact for shipment
status, and FHWA operating authority number of each carrier.
5. Section 619.7 is amended by revising paragraph (d) as follows:
Sec. 619.7 Performance bond.
* * * * *
(d) Surface Freight Forwarders, Shipper Agents and Air Freight
Forwarders. Due to the volume of traffic handled by these modes and the
area normally serviced, the bond amount is set at $100,000.
* * * * *
6. Section 619.8 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 619.8 Basic Agreement.
Motor carriers, surface freight forwarders, shipper agents and air
freight forwarders meeting the qualification requirements of
Secs. 619.1 through 619.7 will be required to sign the appropriate
Basic Agreement in the appendices to this part.
7. A new Appendix G is added to part 619 of the appendices as
follows:
[[Page 49062]]
Appendix G to Part 619--Agreement Between the Military Traffic
Management Command and Air Freight Forwarders Governing the
Transportation of General Commodities for and on Behalf of the U.S.
Department of Defense
1. The undersigned, who is duly authorized and empowered to act
on behalf of:
I,---------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of forwarder, typed or legibly printed)
hereinafter referred to as the Forwarder, as a prerequisite for
consideration for participation in the transport of general
commodities as an exempt Air Freight Forwarder, for the U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD), agree to comply with all requirements,
terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement. Noncompliance
with any provision of this Agreement will be sufficient grounds for
immediate revocation of the forwarder's privilege to participate in
the movement of DOD freight. For the purpose of this Agreement, an
Air Freight Forwarder is defined as a person or company who acts as
a common carrier. That is, a carrier who holds itself out to the
general public to provide transportation of property for
compensation, assembles and consolidates less-than-truckload
freight, as defined in the Instruction for Preparation of Department
of Defense Standard Tender of Freight Services, MT form 364-4 (and
revisions thereto), Part II, uses for the whole or any part of the
line-haul transportation the services of regulated motor or air
carriers, break bulk and delivers the less-than-truckload freight
holding out in its own name and under its own responsibility a
through transportation service from point of receipt to destination.
2. Approval and Revocation.
a. Forwarder understands that its initial approval and retention
of approval are contingent upon establishing and maintaining to
MTMC's satisfaction, sufficient resources to support its proposed
scope of operations and services. Sufficient resources include
equipment, personnel, facilities, and finances to handle traffic
anticipated by DOD/MTMC under the Forwarder's proposed scope of
operations in accordance with the service requirements of the
shipper.
b. The Forwarder understands that MTMC may revoke approval at
any time upon discovery of grounds for ineligibility or
disqualification.
c. In addition to the initial evaluation, the forwarder agrees
that it will cooperate with MTMC follow-up evaluations at any time
subsequent to signing this Agreement to confirm continued
eligibility.
d. Forwarder agrees and certifies that neither the owners,
company, corporate officials, nor any affiliation or subsidiary
thereof are currently debarred or suspended, disqualified by a MTMC
Carrier Review Board (CRB), or placed in non-use by MTMC from doing
business with DOD.
3. Lawful Performance.
a. Forwarder agrees to comply with all applicable Federal,
State, municipal, and other local laws and regulations. No fines,
charges, or assessments for overloaded vehicles or other violations
of applicable laws and regulations will be passed to or be paid by
any agency of the Federal Government.
b. The Forwarder agrees to keep current and on file a list of
all carriers to be used in the transport of DOD freight shipments.
This list will contain, as a minimum, the company's name, president/
vice president's name(s), operating authority number, corporate
office address, telephone number and a designated 24-hour on call
point of contact in the event of an accident or emergency situation.
MTMC can direct the Forwarder not to use specific carriers in the
movement of DOD freight shipments.
c. Forwarder further agrees and certifies that it will only use
carriers that are approved through the Carrier Qualification Program
(CQP) to transport DOD freight, and will not use any carrier that
had been debarred, suspended by the Government or which has been
placed in nonuse or disqualified any MTMC from doing business with
the DOD for the movement of any DOD freight shipments.
4. Operations. Forwarder agrees and certifies that it is
operating as a forwarder as defined herein. If incorporated,
evidence of incorporation, bearing the official seal of the state in
which filed, Articles of Incorporation, listing all the officers of
the corporation is attached and certified to be true, correct and
current.
5. Insurance.
a. The Forwarder agrees to maintain a minimum of $1 million
public liability insurance and $250,000 cargo insurance for loss and
damage of Government freight. A copy of the certificate of insurance
must be on file with MTMC, ATTN: MTOP-QQ prior to any performance of
service by the forwarder.
b. The insurance, carried in the name of Forwarder, will be in
force at all times while this Agreement is in effect or until such
time as the Forwarder cancels all tenders. Forwarder agrees to
ensure that the policies include a provision requiring the insurer
to notify MTMC prior to any performance of service by the carrier.
The certificate holder block of the form will indicate that MTMC,
5611 Columbia Pike, ATTN: MTOP-QQ, Falls Church, VA 22041-5050, will
be notified in writing, 30 days in advance of any change or
cancellation. The deductible portion will be shown on the
certificate.
c. The insurance underwriter must have a policy holder's rating
in the Best's Insurance Guide, listed in the Fiscal Service Treasury
Department Circular 570, Listing of Surety companies. Self-Insurance
will not be accepted.
6. Performance Bond.
a. Forwarder agrees to provide MTMC with a Performance Bond. The
bond secures performance and fulfillment of the Forwarder's
obligation to deliver DOD freight to destination. It will cover
default, abandoned shipments, bankruptcy and reprocurement costs.
The bond will not be utilized for operational problems such as late
pickup or delivery, excessive transit time, refusals, no shows,
improper or inadequate equipment or claims for lost or damaged
cargo. The bond must be issued by a surety company listed in the
Fiscal Service Treasury Department Circular No. 570. The sum of the
bond shall be no less than $100,000. The bond must be completed on
the form provided by MTMC and will be continuous until cancelled.
MTMC will be notified, in writing, 30 days in advance of any change
or cancellation. A letter of intent (LOI), by the surety company, is
required with the initial application. Upon MTMC approval, the
Forwarder will submit the performance bond before the Tender of
Service will be accepted.
7. Safety.
a. Forwarder agrees not to use any carrier that has an
``unsatisfactory'' safety rating with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and if it
is an intrastate motor carrier, with the appropriate state agency.
b. Shipments will be delivered in direct service without delay
to the destination shown on the Government Bill of Lading (GBL)
unless consignor or consignee directs diversion of the shipment to a
new or different destination. Deliveries will be made during the
shipper's normal business hours.
c. Forwarder agrees to not divulge any information to
unauthorized persons concerning the nature and movement of any
movement of shipment tendered to it.
d. The Forwarder agrees to notify, within 24-hours, the
consignor and consignee named by GBL or Commercial Bill of Lading
(CBL) of cargo loss, damage, or unusual delay. Information reported
will include origin/destination, GBL/CBL number, shipping paper
information, time and place of occurrence, and other pertinent
details. Upon request, the Forwarder agrees to furnish MTMC a copy
of accident reports submitted to the DOT on Form MCS 50-T
(property).
e. Forwarder agrees to have in place a company-wide safety
management program. Forwarder safety program will comply with
applicable Federal, State and local statutes or requirements. Safety
programs at the company-wide or terminal level may be subject to
evaluation by DOD representatives. The Forwarder further agrees to
permit unannounced safety inspections of its facilities, terminals,
equipment, employees, and procedures by DOD civilian, military
personnel, or DOD contract employees.
8. [Reserved.]
9. Equipment.
a. Forwarder agrees to ensure equipment is spotted for loading
at the time and place requested. Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)
carriers will be utilized to the maximum extent possible for the
movement of DOD freight. The Government reserves the right to reject
the utilization of any equipment placed for loading by the Forwarder
if it does not, upon inspection meet the specifications and
requirements for the particular shipment involved (sizes, cube,
cleanliness, mechanical condition, etc.).
10. Shipment.
a. Further, the Forwarder agrees to not indulge any information
to unauthorized persons concerning the nature and movement of any
DOD shipment.
11. Documentation.
a. Forwarder agrees to accept GBLs and CBLs on which freight
charges will be paid
[[Page 49063]]
by the Government, and be bound by all terms stated thereon.
b. Forwarder agrees to comply with documentation prelodging
procedures in effect at military terminals in which cargo is
consigned for further movement overseas. (Prelodging is the
submission of advance shipment documents that identify the shipments
to the military terminals prior to arrival of the cargo at the
terminal to permit preparation of the terminal documentation.)
Instructions will be provided by the consignors to furnish certain
data at least 24-hours in advance of cargo arrival at the terminal.
12. Loss and Damage.
a. The Forwarder agrees to be fully liable for delivery of all
cargo in the same condition as received at origin, except loss or
damage caused by an Act of God, public enemy act, omission of
shipper, inherent vice or detrimental changes due to nature of
commodity, or natural shrinkage. Forwarder agrees to settle
promptly, claims for loss or damage. Forwarder also agrees to
provide the status of any shipment tendered to them within 24-hours
after an inquiry is made.
13. Standard Tender of Service.
a. The Forwarder agrees to comply with the preparation and
filing instructions in applicable freight traffic rules publications
issued by MTMC. Forwarder understands that MTMC will reject tenders
not in compliance with these instructions.
b. The Forwarder agrees to publish a street address where the
company office is located in lieu of post office box number. MTMC
must be advised of any change in address. Failure to do so is
grounds to discontinue use of the Forwarders.
c. Forwarder understands that tenders inadvertently accepted and
distributed for use and not in compliance with this Agreement, the
provisions continued in the Standard Tender of Freight Services MT
Form 364-R, or the application MTMC Freight Rules Publication, and
supplements thereof, will be advised when tenders are removed under
these circumstances.
14. Rates.
a. Forwarder agrees to transport Government shipments at the
lowest effective charge named in the tender applicable on the
commodity transported, whether or not the rate tender is referenced
on the GBL.
b. The Forwarder agrees to publish through rates guaranteed for
at least 30 days. These rates must be filed with USTRANSCOM. The
rates for movement of DOD cargo by air will be filed with the Air
Mobility Command (AMC). The Forwarder must publish all rates,
changes, and accessorial services on a DOD Standard Tender of
Freight Services, MT Form 364-R and must comply with the tender
preparation instructions. (Only services annotated with a charge in
the tender will be paid by the shipper.)
c. The Forwarder agrees to promptly refund all uncontested
overcharges to the Government and authorizes the Government to
deduct the amount of overcharges from any amount subsequently found
to be due the Forwarder.
d. The Government reserves the right to pursue administrative
claims directly with Forwarders under the Interstate Commerce Act
(ICC) or other authorities.
15. Carrier Performance.
a. The Forwarder agrees that it's equipment, performance, and
standards of service will conform with its obligations under
Federal, State and local law and regulation as well as with the
guidelines found in the Defense Traffic Regulation (DTR) and this
Agreement. The Forwarder fully understands its obligation to remain
current in its knowledge of service standards. The Forwarder accepts
the Government's right to revoke approval, declare ineligible, non-
use, or disqualify the Forwarder for unsatisfactory service for any
operating deficiency, noncompliance with terms of this Agreement or
terms of any negotiated agreements, tariffs, tenders, bills of
lading or similar arrangements determining the relationship of the
parties, or for the publication or assessment of unreasonable rates,
charges, rules, descriptions, classifications, practices, or other
unreasonable provisions of tariffs and tenders. Rules governing the
Carrier Performance Program (CPP) are found in MTMC Regulation 15-1,
and Army Regulations 55-355 DTMR. If a Forwarder is removed or
disqualified for 6 months or more, it will have to be requalify.
b. Failure or nonperformance by the Forwarder with any of the
terms or conditions of service will constitute a breach of this
Agreement. The Government reserves the right to disqualify the
Forwarder for unsatisfactory service until such time as the
Forwarder establishes, to the satisfaction of DOD that the operating
or other deficienc(ies) have been corrected.
16. General Provisions. That the Forwarder must have a valid
Standard Carrier Alpha Code (SCAC) and use it on all DOD billing
documents to identify the Forwarder. When a company holding the
appropriate authority has operating divisions each with its own
unique SCAC, each such division is required to execute a separate
agreement with MTMC governing the transportation of protected
commodities.
17. Terms of the Agreement.
a. The terms of this Agreement will be applicable to each
shipment.
b. This Agreement shall be effective from the date of
acknowledgment by the MTMC, until terminated upon receipt of written
notice by either party.
c. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed as a guarantee,
by the Government, of any volume traffic.
d. The Forwarder agrees to immediately notify MTMC of any
changes in ownership, in affiliations, executive officers, and/or
board members, and forwarder name. Forwarder understands that
failure to notify MTMC shall be grounds for immediate revocation of
the Forwarder's approval and their participation in the movement of
DOD freight.
18. Additional Specialized Requirements. The terms of this
Agreement will not prevent different or additional requirements with
respect to negotiated agreements or added requirements for other
types of service and/or commodities.
19. Inquiries. Inquiries may be referred to Commander, MTMC,
5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-5050, ATTN: MTOP-
QQ.
20. Forwarder Acknowledgment and Acceptance.
a. The undersigned forwarder official, by affixing signature
hereto, states that he has read and understands the general and
specific terms and conditions of service outlined and agrees to
provide service in accordance with such terms or conditions. Any
information found to be falsely represented in the Qualification
Form, the attachments or during the qualification procedures, to
include additional requirements of this Agreement, shall be grounds
for automatic revocation of this Agreement and immediate non-use of
the carrier, the affiliated companies, division and entities.
Forwarder's Acknowledge/Acceptance
I,---------------------------------------------------------------------
(Typed name and title of carrier official)
verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States
of America, that the information contained in the forwarder
qualification application packet and this Agreement is true, correct
and complete. If representing a company or organization, I certify
that I am qualified and authorized to offer this information. I know
that willful misstatements or omissions of material facts constitute
Federal criminal violations punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by up to
5 years imprisonment and fines up to $10,000 for each offense, or
punishable as perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1621 by fines up to $2,000 or
imprisonment up to 5 years for each offense. Further, I understand
the requirements of this Agreement and on behalf of:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of forwarder, typed or legibly printed)
comply with the terms and conditions contained herein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Signature of carrier official and title)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Signature of agent official and title)
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Address:---------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone Number:------------------------------------------------------
24-Hr. Emergency Number:-----------------------------------------------
Military Traffic Management Command Acknowledgment/Acceptance
Signature and Title:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Approved:---------------------------------------------------------
Frederick G. Wirtz,
Traffic Management Specialist, Qualification Division.
[FR Doc. 96-23874 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23852 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allow Longline Pot Gear
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49076-49077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23852]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 960703187-6253-02; I.D. 062096B]
RIN 0648-AI96
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allow
Longline Pot Gear
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to allow the use of longline pot gear
by vessels engaged in directed fishing for sablefish in the Bering Sea
subarea (BS). Sablefish hook-and-line fishermen in the BS have faced
increasing predation of hooked sablefish by killer whales. The use of
longline pot gear will effectively prevent such predation. This action
is necessary to protect Bering Sea sablefish harvests and is intended
to resolve a conflict between fishermen and a species protected under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the final rule and the Environmental Assessment/
Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/
FRFA) for this action may be obtained from Fisheries Management
Division, Attn: Lori Gravel, Alaska Region, NMFS, Room 453, 709 West
9th Street, Juneau, AK 99801, or P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hale, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the
exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for the
Groundfish Fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP).
The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council) and approved by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This FMP, implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679, authorizes changes to gear
restrictions without amendment to the FMP. The regulations at
Sec. 679.24 specify gear types that may be employed to harvest
sablefish in the BS. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are protected under
the MMPA, which prohibits harassment of marine mammals and authorizes
the Secretary of Commerce to consult with and assist regional fishery
management councils to reduce takings of marine mammals incidental to
commercial fishing operations.
BS sablefish quotas have been underharvested due in part to killer
whale predation of hooked sablefish. Such predation causes conservation
and economic concerns that can be resolved by allowing longline pot
gear in this fishery. Further information on the history of and need
for this action may be found in the preamble to the proposed rule
published on July 16, 1996 (61 FR 37041).
One change has been made in the final rule from the proposed rule.
At proposed Sec. 679.24(c)(4)(i), the term ``pot'' may seem ambiguous;
therefore, the sentence is revised to refer to ``longline pot'' and
``pot-and-line'' gear, which are terms defined in Sec. 679.2,
Definitions.
Comments on the Proposed Rule
Comment: NMFS received one letter of comment on this action. The
comment supports the implementation of this change as improving the
ability of fishermen to harvest sablefish more economically and
efficiently. The comment also requests that the 30-day delayed
effectiveness period be waived to provide fishermen more opportunity to
take advantage of this action during the current Individual Fishing
Quota (IFQ) season.
Response: NMFS concurs that this action will improve the efficiency
and profitability of the BS sablefish fishery. NMFS notes the
commenter's desire for expeditious implementation of this regulatory
change.
Classification
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
Because this final rule allows fishermen in the BS sablefish
fishery the option of using longline pot gear to protect harvests from
killer whale predation, it relieves a restriction. Thus, under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1) it is not subject to a delay in effective date.
The Council prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA), supplemented by a FRFA prepared by NMFS. These documents
provide a statement of the need for and objectives of the rule, which
is also summarized in this preamble. In 1996, 140 persons were issued
sablefish quota shares in the BS and may be affected by this rule. It
is designed to relieve a restriction that negatively affects the
ability of IFQ fishermen to harvest their full sablefish quotas. By
protecting those harvests from killer whale predation, the rule is
expected to have a positive economic impact on small entities.
Alternative 1 of the IRFA/FRFA (the status quo) was rejected in
favor of Alternative 2, because Alternative 2 alone would reduce killer
whale interactions with the fishery by allowing hook-and-line fishermen
to switch to longline pot gear. Although switching from hook-and-line
gear to longline pots would have direct costs, fishermen are expected
to evaluate the balance of costs involved in switching gears with the
profits of greater harvests obtained in the absence of killer whale
predation. The preferred alternative also mitigates possible
disadvantages to fishermen whose vessels may be unable to carry
longline pot gear by establishing a 1-month closure to longline pot
gear. During that time, hook-and-line fishermen will be able to fish
without gear conflicts with longline pot gear or grounds preemption.
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that fishing
activities conducted under this rule will have no adverse impacts on
marine mammals. The express purpose of this rule is to reduce the
interactions of commercial fisheries in the BS with killer whales.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: September 12, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended
to read as follows:
[[Page 49077]]
PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 679.24, paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (c)(4) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 679.24 Gear limitations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Longline pot gear. Any person using longline pot gear must
treat any catch of groundfish as a prohibited species, except:
(A) In the Aleutian Islands subarea.
(B) While directed fishing for sablefish in the Bering Sea subarea,
except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) BSAI. (i) Operators of vessels using gear types other than
hook-and-line, longline pot, pot-and-line, or trawl gear in the BSAI
must treat sablefish as a prohibited species as provided by
Sec. 679.21(b).
(ii) Longline pot gear is prohibited in directed fishing for
sablefish from 0001 hrs, A.l.t., on June 1 until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., on
June 30.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-23852 Filed 9-12-96; 5:04 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23834 Implementation of the Farm Program Provisions of the 1996 Farm Bill; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49049-49050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23834]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Farm Service Agency
7 CFR Part 718
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1412
RIN 0560-AE81
Implementation of the Farm Program Provisions of the 1996 Farm
Bill; Correction
AGENCY: Farm Service Agency and Commodity Credit Corporation,
Department of Agriculture.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final regulations
which were published on Thursday, July 18, 1996, (61 FR 37544).
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 17, 1996.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections
were published on July 18, 1996, at 61 FR 37544, and provide the rules
for a variety of programs administered by the United States Department
of Agriculture under the authority of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 USC 7201 et seq.).
Need for Correction
As published, the final regulations contain errors which may prove
to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication on July 18, 1996, 61 FR 37544 et seq.,
of the final regulations are corrected as follows:
Sec. 718.206 [Corrected]
On page 37561, in the third column, in Sec. 718.206, line ten, the
reference to ``Sec. 718.204(a)(3).'' is corrected to read
``Sec. 718.204.''.
Sec. 1412.206(d) [Corrected]
On page 37578, in the second column, under the reference to
Mississippi in Sec. 1412.206(d), line one, ``Covington, Holmes,
Jefferson Davis,'' is corrected to read ``Covington, Jefferson
Davis,''.
On page 37578, in the third column, under the reference to Oklahoma
in Sec. 1412.206(d), line six, ``Jackson, Kay,'' is corrected to read
``Jackson, Jefferson, Kay,''.
On page 37578, in the third column, under the reference to Texas in
Sec. 1412.206(d), line four, ``Dallam,'' is corrected to read ``Dallam,
Dawson,''.
On page 37579, in the first column, under the reference to Texas in
Sec. 1412.206(d), line three, ``Lubbock,'' is corrected to read
``Lubbock, Lynn,''.
On page 37579, in the first column, under the reference to Texas in
Sec. 1412.206(d), line five, ``Oldam,'' is corrected to read
``Oldham,''.
[[Page 49050]]
Sec. 1412.206(f) [Corrected]
On page 37579, in the second column in Sec. 1412.206(f), line
twenty-eight, the reference to ``kale, kamut, kenya,'' is corrected to
read ``kale, kenya,''.
Sec. 1412.207(b) [Corrected]
On page 37579, in the third column, in Sec. 1412.207(b), line five,
the reference to ``Sec. 1412.303,'' is corrected to read
``Sec. 1412.304,''.
Sec. 1412.207(d)(1) [Corrected]
On page 37579, in the third column, in Sec. 1412.207(d)(1), line
one, ``August 31'' is corrected to read ``September 30''.
Sec. 1412.207(d)(2) [Corrected]
On page 37579, in the third column, in Sec. 1412.207(d)(2), line
two, ``August 31'' is corrected to read ``September 30''.
Sec. 1412.401 [Corrected]
On page 37580, in the second column, in Sec. 1412.401(a), line
five, the reference to ``Secs. 1412.201(6)(c),'' is corrected to read
``Secs. 1412.206(c),''.
On page 37580, in the third column, in Sec. 1412.401(b)(2)(iii),
line one, ``(iii) Producers'' is corrected to read ``(c) Producers''.
Sec. 1412.403 [Corrected]
On page 37580, in the third column, in Sec. 1412.403, line one, the
reference to ``Sec. 718.12'' is corrected to read ``Sec. 718.11''.
Sec. 1412.407 [Corrected]
On page 37581, in the first column, in Sec. 1412.407, line ten, the
reference to ``Sec. 1412.40(b)(1) and (2)'' is corrected to read
``Sec. 1412.401(b)(1) and (2)''.
Signed at Washington, D.C., on September 10, 1996.
Grant Buntrock,
Administrator, Farm Service Agency and Executive Vice President,
Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-23834 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23824 Limes and Avocados Grown in Florida; Relaxation of Container Marking Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49050-49051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23824]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 911 and 915
[Docket No. FV96-911-4FIR]
Limes and Avocados Grown in Florida; Relaxation of Container
Marking Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting as a
final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule
relaxing the container marking requirements prescribed under the
Federal marketing orders for limes and avocados grown in Florida. The
marketing orders regulate the handling of limes and avocados grown in
Florida and are administered locally by the Lime and Avocado
Administrative Committees (committees). This relaxation reduces the
number of lime and avocado containers required to be marked with a lot
stamp number. This rule reduces handling costs and provides more
flexibility in lime and avocado packing operations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aleck Jonas, Marketing Specialist,
Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 2276, Winter Haven, Florida 33883;
telephone: (941) 299-4770; Fax # (941) 299-5169; or Caroline C. Thorpe,
Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, F&V, AMS,
USDA, room 2522-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456;
telephone: (202) 720-8139; Fax # (202) 720-5689. Small businesses may
request information on compliance with this regulation by contacting:
Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone (202) 720-2491; Fax # (202) 720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under Marketing
Order Nos. 911 and 915 (7 CFR parts 911 and 915), as amended,
regulating the handling of limes and avocados grown in Florida,
hereinafter referred to as the ``orders.'' These orders are effective
under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 8c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's
ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20
days after date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this action on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 10 handlers of limes and 65 handlers of
avocados who are subject to regulation under the respective marketing
order and approximately 115 lime and 165 avocado producers in the
regulated areas. Small agricultural service firms, which includes
handlers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR
121.601) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and
small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts
are less than $500,000. The majority of these handlers and producers
may be classified as small entities.
This rule relaxes the lot stamping requirements on containers of
limes and avocadoes that have been palletized prior to block
inspection. Smaller handling facilities are the primary users of block
inspection and will benefit from the cost savings of this relaxation.
Therefore, the AMS has determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the terms of the marketing orders, fresh market shipments of
Florida limes and avocados are required to be inspected and are subject
to grade, size, maturity, pack and container requirements. Prior to the
effective date of the interim final rule, container requirements
included specifications that all authorized containers of limes and
avocados be plainly marked with a
[[Page 49051]]
Federal-State Inspection lot stamp number corresponding to the lot
inspection conducted by an authorized inspector.
This rule finalizes changes to the container marking requirements
under the orders. This rule relaxes the lot stamping requirements on
containers of limes and avocados that have been palletized prior to
block inspections. These changes were unanimously recommended by the
committees on March 13, 1996.
The interim final rule was issued on June 13, 1996, and published
in the Federal Register (61 FR 31004, June 19, 1996), with an effective
date of June 20, 1996. That rule amended Secs. 911.311(b) and
915.306(a)(4)(5) of the rules and regulations in effect under the
orders. That rule provided a 30-day comment period which ended July 19,
1996. No comments were received.
Sections 911.48 and 915.51 of the lime and avocado marketing orders
provide authority for the establishment of container marking
requirements. Sections 911.311(b) and 915.306(a)(4)(5) of the rules and
regulations outline the lot stamp number container marking requirements
for fresh limes and avocados packed under the orders.
There are two basic types of inspection in the industry; in-line
and block. In-line inspection is performed during the packing process,
prior to palletization and storage. In block inspection, the inspection
occurs after the pallets have been packed, strapped, and placed in
storage. Large handling facilities tend to have inspectors on site when
they are packing. These facilities use in-line inspection which allows
the containers to be lot stamped prior to being palletized. Smaller
handling facilities do not run enough fruit to justify the continuous
presence of an inspector. Therefore, they call for a block inspection
after a lot is run, palletized and ready to ship. Requiring the
inspector to lot stamp each container necessitates tearing down all the
pallets. This results in significant cost and loss of time.
The committees recommended relaxing the number of containers
required to be marked with the lot stamp number to assist small
handlers. This relaxation revises the lot stamping requirements for
containers that have been palletized prior to inspection. Under this
change, all exterior, exposed boxes, on all four sides of a pallet, are
lot stamped, rather than each box. The committees anticipate that this
recommended relaxation will avoid prohibitive costs to small handlers.
Less than 25 percent of all lime and avocado shipments are shipped
by small packing houses using block inspection. Under this revised
procedure, most of the containers they pack will be lot stamp numbered.
The center tiers of randomly selected pallets are inspected by the
Federal-State Inspection Service for all marketing order requirements.
The committees' recommendation to relax the container marking
requirement would not lower the number of containers being inspected.
Several other alternatives were suggested during the public
meetings. One alternative discussed by the committees was to require
all containers to continue to be lot stamp numbered. Maintaining the
requirement for lot stamp numbers to be placed on all containers would
not address the burden placed on small handlers. That burden includes
higher handler labor costs, slower handler operations, increased
handler restrapping costs, as well as increased inspection costs. It
was the consensus of the committees that the requirement that all
containers be marked is cost prohibitive as each block-inspected pallet
needs to be manually pulled apart to enable the lot stamp number to be
placed on the center tier containers.
Another alternative suggested was to eliminate the block-inspection
method and require all handlers to use the in-line inspection method.
During in-line inspection, containers would be stamped with the lot
stamp number prior to being stacked on the pallet. This would have a
serious financial impact on the industry, especially among small
handlers, due to a large increase in inspection costs. This suggestion
was unacceptable to the industry as it would be cost prohibitive and
could force small handlers out of business.
Section 8(e) of the Act requires that whenever grade, size, quality
or maturity requirements are in effect for certain commodities under a
domestic marketing order, including limes and avocados, imports of that
commodity must meet the same or comparable requirements. This rule
changes the container marking requirements currently issued under the
orders. Therefore, no change is necessary in the lime and avocado
import regulations as a result of this action to relax the lot stamp
number requirement.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, the
information and recommendations submitted by the committees, and other
information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule,
without change, as published in the Federal Register (61 FR 31004, June
19, 1996) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 911
Marketing agreements, Limes, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 915
Avocados, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 911 and 915
are amended as follows:
PART 911--LIMES GROWN IN FLORIDA
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 911 which
was published at 61 FR 31004 on June 19, 1996, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
PART 915--AVOCADOS GROWN IN SOUTH FLORIDA
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 915 which
was published at 61 FR 31004 on June 19, 1996, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
Dated: September 9, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-23824 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23820 Approval and Promulgation of Lead State Implementation Plan for the State of Florida
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49064-49066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23820]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[FL-60-1-6929a; FRL-5609-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Lead State Implementation Plan for
the State of Florida
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 18, 1994, the Florida Department of Environmental
[[Page 49065]]
Protection (FDEP) submitted revisions to the Florida State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision includes amendments to the
rules in the Florida Administrative Code, Chapters 17-275, Air Quality
Areas, and 17-296, Stationary Sources--Emission Standards. These
revisions provide for the control of lead emissions from facilities in
the State of Florida, and will replace the Federal Implementation Plan
requirements. The approval of this plan does not satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.117 which requires the State to submit a
source-specific lead plan for Gulf Coast Recycling located in the
Hillsborough County lead nonattainment area.
DATES: This action is effective November 18, 1996 unless adverse or
critical comments are received by October 18, 1996. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Ms.
Kimberly Bingham at the EPA Regional Office listed below.
Copies of the documents relative to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Programs Branch, 100
Alabama Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Twin Towers Office
Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kimberly Bingham, Regulatory
Planning and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides
& Toxics Management Division, Region 4 Environmental Protection Agency,
Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia, 30365. The telephone number is
(404) 347-2864 extension 4195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 17, 1984, the State of Florida
through FDEP submitted a lead implementation plan, and on November 1,
1985, (50 FR 45605) EPA took final action on the lead SIP. The action
disapproved the regulatory portion of the SIP because the regulations
needed to implement specific measures necessary to assure attainment
and maintenance of the lead national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) were not included. The EPA promulgated a source-specific
Federal Implementation Plan to replace the disapproved Florida lead
SIP.
On June 24, 1992, EPA Region 4, notified the Governor of Florida
that a portion of Hillsborough County should be redesignated
nonattainment for lead (57 FR 44374) based on a violation of the lead
NAAQS which is 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter. A lead value of 2.27
micrograms per cubic meter was reported the fourth quarter of 1991 by a
monitor located south of the Gulf Coast Recycling plant boundary. On
January 8, 1993, the State of Florida requested that the portion of
Hillsborough County surrounding the Gulf Coast Recycling Company be
redesignated to nonattainment for lead. The EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register requesting that the area be
designated nonattainment (58 FR 44641). Final rulemaking on this issue
has not occurred because Region 4 agreed to allow the State of Florida
to withdraw their nonattainment redesignation request if they submitted
an approvable lead submittal that provided for the attainment of the
lead NAAQS. On August 18, 1994, FDEP submitted revisions to the Florida
SIP. The revisions include amendments to the rules in the Florida
Administrative Code, Chapters 17-275, Air Quality Areas, and 17-296,
Stationary Sources--Emission Standards. These revisions provide for the
control of lead emissions from facilities in the State of Florida. This
plan will serve only to replace the Federal Implementation Plan
requirements codified in 40 CFR 52.535. The State of Florida will be
submitting a source-specific plan for Gulf Coast Recycling that
provides for the attainment of the lead NAAQS in the Hillsborough
County lead nonattainment area and must do so to satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.117.
The EPA is not taking action on Chapter 17-275.410--Designation of
Areas Not Meeting Ambient Air Quality Standards (Nonattainment Areas)
and Chapter 17-275.600--Designation of Air Quality Maintenance Areas in
this document.
Summary of SIP Revisions
Chapter 17-296.200--Definitions
This chapter defines all lead processing operations subject to
these SIP revisions.
Chapter 17-296.600
To control lead emissions in the State of Florida, this chapter
requires that all facilities located in the affected area to use
reasonable available control technologies (RACT). This chapter requires
all affected facilities to submit a revised permit application to the
State of Florida that includes an operation and maintenance plan for
the lead emissions control devices, collection systems, and processing
systems. All affected facilities must keep records of the control
equipment operating parameters, maintenance performed, and system
malfunctions of the lead emission control equipment and failures and
corrective actions taken.
Chapter 17-296.601
This chapter requires the operators of the affected lead facilities
to control their fugitive lead emissions with RACT, and include a
description of the RACT measures to be employed at the facility.
Examples of measures that constitute RACT are also listed in this
chapter.
Chapters 17-296.602, 17-296.603, 17-296.604, 17-296.605
These chapters require the affected lead facilities to be equipped
with RACT to control their lead emissions, and include air dispersion
modeling in their air permit applications that demonstrates that their
facility will not contribute to a violation of the lead NAAQS. These
chapters also list the emission limiting standards for all of the
affected lead facilities.
Final Action
The EPA has evaluated the State's submittal for consistency with
the Clean Air Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. The EPA has
determined that the rules submitted by the State of Florida meet the
Clean Air Act's requirements and is approving this submittal under
section 110(k)(3).
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action is effective
November 18, 1996 unless, within 30 days of its publication, adverse or
critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public
[[Page 49066]]
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule published with this action. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If
no such comments are received, the public is advised that this action
is effective November 18, 1996.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7607
(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in
the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by
November 18, 1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this
rule for purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within
which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. [See
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(2)].
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 110 of the CAA.
These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain
duties. EPA has examined whether the rules being approved by this
action would impose no new requirements, since such sources are already
subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action, and therefore there will be no
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) Act (APAA) as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a
report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General
of the General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in
today's Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 15, 1996.
R.F. McGhee,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart K--Florida
2. Section 52.520 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(91) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(91) The State of Florida submitted revisions to the FDEP
Administrative Code for the Air Pollution Control Program on August 18,
1994. These revisions provide for the control of lead emissions from
facilities in the State of Florida, and will replace the Federal
Implementation Plan requirements codified in 40 CFR 52.535.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Chapters 17-296.200 (97) and (163)
introductory paragraph and (e), 17-296.600-605 effective on August 8,
1994.
(ii) Other material. None.
3. Section 52.535 is removed and reserved.
[FR Doc. 96-23820 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23793 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lower Grand River, Louisiana
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23793]
[[Page 49064]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD08-96-003]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lower Grand River, Louisiana
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: At the request of the Iberville Parish School Board, the Coast
Guard is changing the regulation governing the operation of the pontoon
drawbridge on LA State Road 77 across the Lower Grand River
(Intracoastal Waterway, Morgan City to Port Allen, Alternate Route),
mile 47.0 at Grosse Tete, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. The bridge will
open on signal; except that from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and from 2:30
p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, other than Federal holidays,
and only during the months when local schools are in session, the
bridge will remain closed to navigation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on October 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Johnson, Bridge
Administration Branch, (504) 589-2965.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Drafting Information
The principal persons involved in drafting this document are Mr.
Phil Johnson, project officer, and LTJG Stephen Alvarez, project
attorney.
Regulatory History
On April 26, 1996 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lower Grand River,
LA in the Federal Register (61 FR 18532) dated April 26, 1996. The
Coast Guard Received no letters commenting on the proposal. No public
hearing was requested and none was held.
Background and Purpose
The Iberville Parish School Board requested the regulation because
a new, staggered starting time has been implemented for the schools in
the Parish. The extension of the morning closure for the LA 77 bridge
will assist school buses in transporting the students to their classes
in a timely manner. The new regulation allows for the free flow of
vehicular traffic, while still serving the reasonable needs of
navigational interests. For these reasons, the Coast Guard for good
cause finds, under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B) that notice and public
procedure on the notice are unnecessary.
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 cost 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.
The basis for this conclusion is that, during the regulated periods,
there will be very little inconvenience to vessels using the waterway.
In addition, mariners requiring the bridge openings are repeat users of
the waterway and scheduling their arrivals to avoid the regulated
periods should involve little or no additional expense to them.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small 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). This rule will have little impact on either vehicular
or navigational traffic. Since this final rule also considers the needs
of local commercial fishing vessels, and the economic impact is
expected to be minimal, the coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this proposal 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
This final rulemaking has been thoroughly reviewed by the Coast
Guard and it has been determined to be categorically excluded from
further environmental documentation in accordance with section 2.B.2g.5
of Commandant Instruction M16475.1B. A Categorical Exclusion
Determination has been prepared and placed in the rulemaking docket.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulation
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 117 of Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g).
2. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 117.478 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 117.478 Lower Grand River (Intracoastal Waterway).
* * * * *
(b) The draw of the LA 77 bridge, mile 47.0 (Alternate Route) at
Grosse Tete, shall open on signal; except that, from about August 15 to
about June 5 (the school year), the draw need not be opened from 6 a.m.
to 8 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except
Federal holidays. The draw shall open on signal at any time for an
emergency aboard a vessel.
* * * * *
Dated: August 14, 1996.
T.W. Josiah,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-23793 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23754 Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Standard Model 14RF-9 Propellers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23754]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-ANE-04; Amendment 39-9705; AD 96-08-01 R1]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Standard Model 14RF-9
Propellers
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 96-08-01 R1 applicable to Hamilton Standard Model 14RF-9
propellers that was published in the Federal Register on August 2, 1996
(61 FR 40313). The Amendment No. in the header to the Compliance
section is incorrect. This document corrects the Amendment No. In all
other respects, the original document remains the same.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Walsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299;
telephone (617) 238-7158, fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final rule airworthiness directive
applicable to Hamilton Standard Model 14RF-9 propellers, was published
in the Federal Register on August 2, 1996 (61 FR 40313). The following
correction is needed:
Sec. 39.13 [Corrected]
On page 40314, in the third column, in the header to the Compliance
Section, in the second line, ``Amendment No. 39-9707'' is corrected to
read ``Amendment No. 39-9705''.
Issued in Burlington, MA, on August 26, 1996.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-23754 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23715 Airworthiness Directives; Weatherly Aviation Company, Inc., Models 620A and 620B Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49053-49055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23715]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-CE-42-AD; Amendment 39-9763; AD 96-16-06]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Weatherly Aviation Company, Inc.,
Models 620A and 620B Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT
.ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document publishes in the Federal Register an amendment
adopting Airworthiness Directive (AD) 96-16-06, which was sent
previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of certain Weatherly
Aviation Company, Inc., (Weatherly) Models 620A and 620B airplanes.
This AD requires inspecting all wing hinge pins, part number (P/N)
40852-001, at the main wing-to-center section attachment (four per
airplane) for depth of the threaded ends, length of the pin, and
position of the pin; and replacing or repositioning any pin, as
necessary. A report received by the Federal Aviation Administration of
manufacturing deficiencies at the area of the main wing center section
attachment prompted the AD. The actions specified by this AD are
intended to prevent failure of the wing hinge pin, which could result
in the wing separating from the fuselage.
DATES: Effective October 6, 1996, to all persons except those to whom
it was made immediately effective by priority letter AD 96-16-06,
issued July 26, 1996, which contained the requirements of this
amendment.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 6, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before November 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 96-CE-
42-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained from
the Weatherly Aviation Company, Inc., 2100 Flightline Drive, suite 1,
P.O. Box 68, Lincoln, California 95648. This information may also be
examined at the Rules Docket at the address above, or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Roberts, Aerospace
Engineer, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712-4137; telephone (310) 627-5228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Events Leading to the AD
The FAA received a report of manufacturing deficiencies on certain
Weatherly Models 620A and 620B airplanes. In particular:
--the wing hinge pins, part number (P/N) 40852-001, at the main
wing spar wing-to-center section attachment could be too short and/or
misaligned, which could result in the pins not properly securing the
wing to the fuselage for ultimate airplane loads; and
--the threaded ends of the wing hinge pin retaining bolt holes could be
drilled too deep, which could result in excessive stress load on the
wing hinge pins with subsequent wing hinge pin failure.
Applicable Service Information
Weatherly Aviation Company, Inc., has issued Service Note No. 15,
dated July 17, 1996, which specifies procedures for inspecting the P/N
40852-001 wing hinge pins for depth of the threaded ends, overall
length, and pin position.
Explanation of the Provisions of This Action
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other Weatherly Models 620A and 620B airplanes of
the same type design that are equipped with at least one P/N 40852-001
hinge pin from a manufacturing lot that could have the above-referenced
quality control problems, the FAA issued priority letter AD 96-16-06 on
July 26, 1996, to prevent failure of the wing hinge pin. The AD
requires inspecting all wing hinge pins, P/N 40852-001, at the main
wing-to-center section attachment (four per airplane) for depth of the
threaded ends, length of the pin, and position of the pin; and
replacing or repositioning any pin, as necessary. Accomplishment of the
inspections is in accordance with the instructions in Weatherly
Aviation Company, Inc., Service Note No. 15, dated July 17, 1996. The
replacement or repositioning is accomplished in accordance with the
applicable maintenance manual.
Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were
impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause
existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual letters
issued on July 26, 1996 to all known U.S. operators of the following
Weatherly model and serial number airplanes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
620A...................................... 1520 through 1614.
620B...................................... 1616 through 1628.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the
Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective as to all
persons.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting immediate flight safety and, thus, was not
preceded by notice and opportunity to comment, comments are
[[Page 49054]]
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 above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 96-CE-42-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 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 a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
96-16-06 Weatherly Aviation Company, Inc.: Amendment 39-9763;
Docket No. 96-CE-42-AD.
Applicability: The following model and serial number airplanes,
certificated in any category, that are equipped with at least one
part number (P/N) 40852-001 hinge pin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
620A...................................... 1520 through 1614.
620B...................................... 1616 through 1628.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required prior to further flight after the effective
date of this AD, unless already accomplished, except to those
operators receiving this action by priority letter issued July 26,
1996, which made these actions effective immediately upon receipt.
To prevent failure of the wing hinge pin, which could result in
the wing separating from the fuselage, accomplish the following:
(a) Inspect the wing hinge pins, P/N 40852-001, at the main spar
wing-to-center section attachment (four per airplane) for the
following in accordance with the instructions in Weatherly Aviation
Company, Inc., Service Note No. 15, dated July 17, 1996:
(1) Inspect for the depth of the threaded ends per figure 1 of
Weatherly Aviation Company, Inc., Service Note No. 15, dated July
17, 1996. If the depth exceeds .84 inches, prior to further flight,
replace the pin in accordance with the applicable maintenance
manual.
(2) Inspect for the overall length per figure 1 of Weatherly
Aviation Company, Inc., Service Note No. 15, dated July 17, 1996. If
the length is less than 3.06 inches, prior to further flight,
replace the pin in accordance with the applicable maintenance
manual.
(3) Inspect the position of the pin to ensure it is centered in
the spar hinges. If the pin position is not centered in the spar
hinges, prior to further flight, center the pin and tighten the cap
retainer bolts evenly as specified in Weatherly Aviation Company,
Inc., Service Note No. 15, dated July 17, 1996, and in accordance
with the applicable maintenance manual.
Note 2: Although not required by this AD, it is encouraged that
all pins that require replacement be returned to the Weatherly
Aviation Company, Inc., 2100 Flightline Drive, suite 1, P.O. Box 68,
Lincoln, California 95648.
(b) Send the results of the inspection required by paragraph (a)
of this AD within 10 calendar days after the inspection to the
Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), Attention:
W. Roberts, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712-4137. Include the airplane serial number, and the condition
and number of hours time-in-service of each deficient wing hinge pin
at the time of inspection. (Reporting approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under OMB no. 2120-0056.)
(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. The hopper must be
empty during this flight.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an equivalent level of safety may be
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, at the address specified
in paragraph (b) of this AD. The request shall be forwarded through
an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and
then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(e) The inspections required by this AD shall be done in
accordance with Weatherly Aviation Company, Inc., Service Note No.
15, dated July 17, 1996. 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 the
Weatherly Aviation Company, Inc., 2100 Flightline Drive, suite 1,
P.O. Box 68, Lincoln, California 95648. Copies may be inspected at
the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of
the Federal
[[Page 49055]]
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment (39-9763) becomes effective on October 6,
1996, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made
immediately effective by priority letter AD 96-16-06, issued July
26, 1996, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 10, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-23715 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23714 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49055-49056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23714]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-249-AD; Amendment 39-9758; AD 96-19-12]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, that
requires inspection and adjustment of the torque value of the attaching
parts of the interlock mechanism of the large cargo doors, removal of a
spring from that mechanism, and installation of a new microswitch
bracket. This amendment is prompted by a report indicating that a
spring on the interlock lever of the large cargo doors may become
disconnected or the lever may become jammed in the ``activated'' state.
The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent the spring
from becoming disconnected or the lever from jamming. If other failures
occur, the flightcrew could dispatch the airplane with improperly
locked cargo doors; this condition could result in the opening and/or
separation of the cargo doors while the airplane is in flight and
subsequent rapid decompression and/or structural damage to the
airplane.
DATES: Effective October 23, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. 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: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2141; 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 certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100
series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1995
(60 FR 37038). For certain airplanes, that action proposed to require
an inspection to determine the torque value of the attaching parts of
the interlock mechanism of the large cargo doors, and adjustment of the
torque values that are outside certain limits. For other airplanes, the
action proposed to require removal of a spring from the interlock
mechanism of the large cargo doors, and installation of a new
microswitch bracket and two new springs in the interlock mechanism.
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 for Extension of Compliance Time
One commenter requests that the compliance time for the proposed
actions be extended from the proposed 6 months to 12 months. This
commenter, a U.S. operator, states that its fleet includes 40 of the 61
U.S.-registered airplanes that would be affected by the rule. Extending
the compliance time to 12 months will allow the commenter to accomplish
the required modifications during a scheduled ``C'' check, when the
airplanes are brought to the main maintenance base for an extended
hold. Adoption of the proposed 6-month compliance time would require
that this commenter special-schedule its airplanes for the
accomplishment of the modification at stations other than the main
base; however, adoption of a 12-month compliance time would allow this
commenter's fleet to be modified at the same place and by the same
technicians familiar with the task.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. In developing
an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered not only
the safety implications, but the manufacturer's recommendations, the
Dutch airworthiness authority's recommendations, the availability of
required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the
modification within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled
maintenance for affected operators. The FAA also considered the fact
that the referenced Fokker service bulletin (containing the procedures
for accomplishing the required actions) has been available to all
operators of Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes since August
1993; therefore, U.S. operators have had ample time since then to
consider initiating those actions, which this AD ultimately mandates.
In light of all of these items, the FAA finds that 6 months is the
appropriate period of time that affected airplanes can be permitted to
continue to operate without compromising safety. Under the provisions
of paragraph (b) of the final rule, however, the FAA may consider
requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted
to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable
level of safety.
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 as proposed.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 61 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD.
For 7 of these airplanes, it will take approximately 6 work hours
per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, at an average labor
rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of
the inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators of these airplanes
is estimated to be $2,520, or $360 per airplane.
For the other 54 airplanes, it will take approximately 12 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the required removal and installation,
at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost
approximately $1,200 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the removal and installation required by this AD on U.S.
operators of these airplanes is estimated to be $103,680, or $1,920 per
airplane.
[[Page 49056]]
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
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:
96-19-12 Fokker: Amendment 39-9758. Docket 94-NM-249-AD.
Applicability: Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes; as listed
in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-045, dated August 25, 1993;
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 the opening and/or separation of the large cargo
doors while the airplane is in flight, which could result in rapid
decompression and/or structural damage to the airplane, accomplish
the following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-
045, dated August 25, 1993.
(1) For airplanes having serial numbers listed in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-
045, dated August 25, 1993: Perform an inspection to determine the
torque value of the attaching parts of the interlock mechanism of
the large cargo doors, in accordance with Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. If the torque
value is outside the limits specified in paragraphs 2.C.(1) and
2.C.(2) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin,
prior to further flight, adjust the torque value in accordance with
the service bulletin.
(2) For airplanes having serial numbers listed in Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-
045, dated August 25, 1993: Remove the spring from the interlock
mechanism, and install a new microswitch bracket and new springs in
the interlock mechanism, in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(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 actions shall be done in accordance with Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-52-045, dated August 25, 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 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.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on October 23, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 10, 1996.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-23714 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23713 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and -3R) and CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100) Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49056-49058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23713]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-247-AD; Amendment 39-9761; AD 96-19-15]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A
and -3R) and CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100) Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 and CL-600-2B19
series airplanes, that requires a one-time inspection of the spring
bungee assembly of the nose landing gear (NLG) to ensure proper torque
of the collar and correct clearance between the collar and the body of
the bungee, and replacement of the spring bungee assembly with a
serviceable unit, if necessary. This amendment is prompted by reports
of failure of the NLG to extend when the landing gear selector was
placed in the ``DOWN'' position, and failure of the NLG doors to open
when the NLG door switch was set in the ``SAFETY/DOOR OPEN'' position;
these conditions may have been caused by a reduced stroke of the spring
bungee. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
improper operation of the NLG door and consequent inability to extend
the NLG due to a reduced stroke of the spring bungee.
DATES: Effective October 23, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director
[[Page 49057]]
of the Federal Register as of Octber 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box
6087, Station Centre-ville, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada. This information
may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley
Stream, New York; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danko Kramar, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth
Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York; telephone (516) 256-7509;
fax (516) 568-2716.
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 certain Bombardier Model CL-600-
2B16 and CL-600-2B19 series airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on July 8, 1996 (61 FR 35691). That action proposed to require
a one-time inspection of the spring bungee assembly of the nose landing
gear (NLG) to ensure proper torque of the collar and correct clearance
between the collar and the body of the bungee, and replacement of the
spring bungee assembly with a serviceable (new or reworked) unit, if
necessary.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response
to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
Conclusion
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 101 Bombardier Model CL-600-2B16 and CL-600-
2B19 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 $24,240, 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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-19-15 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39-9761.
Docket 95-NM-247-AD.
Applicability: Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and -3R), serial
numbers 5100 through 5166, inclusive; and Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100) series airplanes, serial numbers 7003
through 7048, inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must 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 improper operation of the nose landing gear (NLG)
door and consequent inability to extend the NLG due to a reduced
stroke of the spring bungee, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Perform
a one-time inspection of the spring bungee assembly of the NLG to
ensure proper torque of the collar and correct clearance between the
collar and the body of the bungee; in accordance with Canadair
Regional Jet Alert Service Bulletin A601R-32-037, Revision ``A,''
dated December 2, 1994 (for Model CL-600-2B19 series airplanes); or
Canadair Challenger Service Bulletin 601-0454, dated May 15, 1995,
as amended by Service Bulletin Information Sheet 601-0454, dated
July 14, 1995 (for Model CL-600-2B16 series airplanes); as
applicable.
(b) If improper torque of the collar is found, or if incorrect
clearance between the collar and the body of the bungee is found:
Prior to further flight, replace the spring bungee assembly with a
serviceable (new or reworked) unit that has been inspected in
accordance with Canadair Regional Jet Alert Service Bulletin A601R-
32-037, Revision ``A,'' dated December 2, 1994 (for Model CL-600-
2B19 series airplanes); or Canadair Challenger Service Bulletin 601-
0454, dated May 15, 1995, as amended by Service Bulletin Information
Sheet 601-0454, dated July 14, 1995 (for Model CL-600-2B16 series
airplanes); as applicable. Accomplish the replacement in accordance
with the applicable service bulletin.
(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
a spring bungee assembly having part number 600-86115-1 (for Model
CL-600-2B16 series airplanes) or 600-86115-5/70 (for Model CL-600-
2B19 series airplanes) on any airplane unless that assembly has been
inspected and reworked, as necessary, in accordance with paragraph
(a) of 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, New York Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an
[[Page 49058]]
appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add
comments and then send it to the Manager, New York ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the New York ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) The inspection and replacement shall be done in accordance
with Canadair Regional Jet Alert Service Bulletin A601R-32-037,
Revision ``A,'' dated December 2, 1994; or Canadair Challenger
Service Bulletin 601-0454, dated May 15, 1995, as amended by Service
Bulletin Information Sheet 601-0454, dated July 14, 1995; as
applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Bombardier, Inc.,
Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville,
Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office,
Engine and Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor,
Valley Stream, New York; or at the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on October 23, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 10, 1996.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-23713 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23711 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49051-49053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23711]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-252-AD; Amendment 39-9760; AD 96-19-14]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, that
requires replacement of certain flexible oxygen hoses, located in the
flight compartment gangway and in the consoles, with insulated hose
assemblies. This amendment is prompted by reports of either
insufficient or no clearance between these hoses and adjacent structure
or electrical wiring. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent chafing of the
[[Page 49052]]
flexible oxygen hoses, which could result in an uncontrollable loss of
oxygen from the flightcrew oxygen system, and could allow the presence
of oxygen in areas where ignition is possible.
DATES: Effective October 23, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. 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: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2141; 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 certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100
series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 28,
1996 (61 FR 13791). That action proposed to require replacement of
flexible oxygen hoses with insulated hose assemblies.
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 Clarify Installation Requirement
One commenter requests that paragraph (b) of the proposed rule,
which prohibits installation of a hose assembly with part number (P/N)
A66152-417 or A66152-407 on the airplane, be revised to clarify that
these flexible hoses may be installed at other locations on the
airplane.
The FAA concurs. The intent of the AD was to prohibit the
installation of the flexible hoses only in those locations specified in
paragraph (a) of the AD, i.e., the flight compartment gangway and the
left-hand and right-hand side consoles. Paragraph (b) of the AD has
been revised to clarify this intent.
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 change previously
described. The FAA has determined that this change will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 21 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. Required parts will cost approximately
$1,376 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD
on U.S. operators is estimated to be $33,936, or $1,616 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.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-19-14 Fokker: Amendment 39-9760. Docket 95-NM-252-AD.
Applicability: Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, having
serial numbers 11244 through 11321 inclusive, and 11323 through
11332 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (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 an uncontrollable loss of oxygen from the flightcrew
oxygen system due to chafing of the flexible oxygen hoses, which
could result in the presence of oxygen in areas where ignition is
possible; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 12 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the flexible oxygen
hoses having part number (P/N) A66152-407, located in the left-hand
(LH) and right-hand (RH) side consoles with insulated tube
assemblies having P/N D66127-401; and replace the flexible oxygen
assemblies having P/N A66152-417, located in the flight compartment
gangway with insulated tube assemblies having P/N D66127-403; in
accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-35-004, dated May 17,
1995.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
a hose assembly with P/N A66152-417 or A66152-407, in the flight
compartment gangway or in the LH or RH side consoles of any
airplane.
[[Page 49053]]
(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 replacements shall be done in accordance with Fokker
Service Bulletin SBF100-35-004, dated May 17, 1995. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from 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 October 23, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 10, 1996.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-23711 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23209 Practices and Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23209]
========================================================================
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. 182 / Wednesday, September 18, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49049]]
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
5 CFR Part 1201
Practices and Procedures
AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is amending its rules of practice and procedure to
make an inflation adjustment in the amount of the civil monetary
penalty it may assess against a Federal employee in a disciplinary
action brought by the Special Counsel. This adjustment is required by
the ``Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990''
(Pub.L. 101-410), as amended by the ``Debt Collection Improvement Act
of 1996'' (Pub.L. 104-134).
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert E. Taylor, Clerk of the Board, 202-653-7200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4 of the ``Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990'' (Pub. L. 101-410), as amended by the
``Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996'' (Pub. L. 104-134), requires
each Federal agency with statutory authority to assess a civil monetary
penalty (CMP) to adjust each CMP by the inflation adjustment described
in section 5 of the Act. Such adjustment is to be made by regulation
published in the Federal Register. The first inflation adjustment is
required by October 23, 1996--180 days after the enactment of the
``Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.'' Thereafter, agencies are
to make inflation adjustments by regulation at least once every four
years. Any increase in a CMP made pursuant to the Act applies only to
violations that occur after the date the increase takes effect.
The Merit Systems Protection Board's only statutory authority to
assess a CMP is found at 5 U.S.C. 1215(a)(3), which describes the
penalties the Board may impose when it orders disciplinary action
against a Federal employee in a complaint brought by the Special
Counsel (other than a disciplinary action complaint for violation of
the Hatch Act). One of the penalties authorized is assessment of a
civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.
Because the Act limits the initial inflation adjustment in a CMP to
10 percent of the penalty specified by statute, the Board is amending
its rules at 5 CFR 1201.126(c) to increase the maximum civil penalty it
may assess in a Special Counsel disciplinary action to $1,100.
The Board is publishing this rule as a final rule pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 1204(h).
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1201
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Government
employees.
Accordingly, the Board amends 5 CFR part 1201 as follows:
PART 1201--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 1201 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1204, and 7701 unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 1201.126 [Amended]
2. Section 1201.126 is amended at paragraph (c) by removing
``$1,000'' and by adding in its place ``$1,100.''
Dated: September 6, 1996.
Robert E. Taylor,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-23209 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-M
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.