issue-1996-04-24•Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-24
Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-24
issue-1996-04-24Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-24Regulation
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. 96-9999 Reconfiguration of Restricted Area R-6714, Yakima Firing Center; Washington
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18062-18064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9999]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 73
[Airspace Docket No. 94-ANM-25]
Reconfiguration of Restricted Area R-6714, Yakima Firing Center;
Washington
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action restructures restricted airspace at Yakima Firing
Center, WA. Currently, Restricted Area R-6714 is composed of five
subareas: R-6714A, R-6714B, R-6714C, R-6714D, and R-6714E. This rule
decreases the size of areas R-6714A, R-6714C, and R-6714D by deleting
the restricted airspace west of Interstate Highway 82, and the airspace
south of the Yakima Firing Center property boundary. The remainder of
R-6714A and R-6714E are redesigned, with three new subareas
established: R-6714F, R-6714G, and R-6714H, to facilitate the release
of portions of the restricted area for public access. A portion of R-
6714G, and all of R-6714H, consisting of new restricted airspace, are
established. These changes are the result of a Department of Army
review of their overall training and operational requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules
Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal
Aviation
[[Page 18063]]
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-3075.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On June 1, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 73 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 73) to restructure Restricted Area R-
6714, Yakima Firing Center, WA. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were
received. After further consideration, it was determined that the time
of designation for R-6714A would not be amended as proposed. The time
of designation would remain as intermittent by NOTAM. Except for the
change to the time of designation and editorial changes, this amendment
is the same as that proposed in the notice. The coordinates for this
airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Section 73.67 of
part 73 of the Federal Aviation Regulations was republished in FAA
Order 7400.8C dated June 29, 1995.
The Rule
This amendment to part 73 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 73) restructures Restricted Area R-6714, Yakima Firing Center,
WA. The Department of Army has performed a review of overall training
and operational requirements and has requested changes in the Yakima
Firing Center restricted airspace to accommodate changes in its
training tactics.
The revised restricted areas support the firing of long-range
weapons into existing impact areas. No additional impact areas are
established and there is no change in the types of activities currently
conducted in the R-6714 complex. In order to achieve training and
operational requirements, it was necessary to redesign R-6714A, R-
6714B, R-6714C, R-6714D, and R-6714E. R-6714E is a high altitude
subdivision that overlies the current restricted airspace
configuration. The current subareas R-6714A, R-6714C, and R-6714D, are
being decreased in size. Three new subareas are established: R-6714F,
R-6714G, and R-6714H. R-6714F is formed from airspace currently in the
northwest end of the existing R-6714A. The purpose of the ``F'' area
subdivision is to facilitate the release of restricted airspace to
accommodate the VOR and GPS-A instrument approaches at Bowers Field,
Ellenburg, WA. R-6714F will be activated approximately 30 days per year
thus reducing the impact on instrument approach procedures at Bowers
Field. R-6714G is established from a combination of airspace comprising
the northern tip of the existing R-6714A, and the designation of new
restricted airspace. R-6714H consists totally of new restricted
airspace to the north of the existing R-6714A boundary. The redesigned
high altitude subdivision, R-6714E, will overlie all subareas except
the new R-6714H. Under this rule, existing restricted airspace outside
the Yakima Firing Center boundary is deleted, including all restricted
airspace west of Interstate Highway 82, and airspace south of the
Yakima Firing Center boundary. Restricted airspace is expanded to the
north of the current complex boundary by establishing R-6714G and R-
6714H. The expanded area consists of approximately 58,340 acres of
Army-owned land and 6,630 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
land. The BLM Wenzichee Resource Office has transferred control of the
affected BLM land in R-6714H and R-6714G to the Army for military
activities in accordance with 43 CFR 8364.1(a). In addition, the
internal boundaries of R-6714A, R-6714B, R-6714C, and R-6714D are also
redesigned to accommodate the requirements of the U.S. Army.
The new R-6714 configuration allows the activation of all or
selected portions of the restricted area on an as needed basis, thus
decreasing the burden on nonparticipating aircraft that normally
circumnavigate the restricted areas when they are in use. The
activities presently being conducted in the Yakima Firing Center
complex, as well as the time of designation, and designated altitudes
remain the same.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
The Airfield Commander, Yakima Firing Center, and the Environmental
Resources Branch, Environmental and Natural Resources Division,
Directorate of Engineering and Housing, Fort Lewis, Washington,
performed an environmental assessment (EA) and issued a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI). The FAA adopts the U.S. Army EA/FONSI on
the basis of the conclusions contained in the EA.
Use of the subject area, as proposed, is consistent with existing
national environmental policies and objectives as set forth in Section
101(a) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and would not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment or otherwise
include any condition requiring consultation pursuant to Section
102(2)(c) of NEPA.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 73.67 [Amended]
2. Section 73.67 is amended as follows:
R-6714A Yakima, WA [Amended]
By removing the present boundaries and altitudes and substituting
the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46 deg.51'15''N., long.
119 deg.57'57''W.; thence south along the west edge of the Columbia
River to lat. 46 deg.42'28''N., long. 119 deg.58'19''W.; to lat.
46 deg.35'04''N., long. 120 deg.02'50''W.; to lat. 46 deg.37'50''N.,
long. 120 deg.20'26''W.; to lat. 46 deg.38'29''N., long.
120 deg.20'25''W.; to lat. 46 deg.38'59''N., long. 120 deg.22'13''W.;
to lat. 46 deg.42'19''N., long. 120 deg.26'12''W.; then north along the
east side of Interstate Highway 82 to lat. 46 deg.47'49''N., long.
120 deg.21'19''W.; to lat. 46 deg.51'09''N., long. 120 deg.09'02''W.;
thence to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 29,000 feet MSL.
R-6714B Yakima, WA [Amended]
By removing the present boundaries and altitudes and substituting
the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46 deg.42'28''N., long.
119 deg.58'19''W.; then
[[Page 18064]]
south along the west edge of the Columbia River to lat.
46 deg.38'59''N., long. 119 deg.56'09''W.; to lat. 46 deg.38'08''N.,
long. 119 deg.56'13''W.; to lat. 46 deg.38'08''N., long.
119 deg.55'04''W.; to lat. 46 deg.33'55''N., long. 119 deg.55'04''W.;
to lat. 46 deg.35'04''N., long. 120 deg.02'50''W.; thence to point of
beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 29,000 feet MSL.
R-6714C Yakima, WA [Amended]
By removing the present boundaries and altitudes and substituting
the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46 deg.33'55''N., long.
119 deg.55'04''W.; to lat. 46 deg.32'50''N., long. 119 deg.55'04''W.;
to lat. 46 deg.32'50''N., long. 120 deg.04'25''W.; to lat.
46 deg.37'03''N., long. 120 deg.20'26''W.; to lat. 46 deg.37'50''N.,
long. 120 deg.20'26''W.; to lat. 46 deg.35'04''N., long.
120 deg.02'50''W.; thence to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 29,000 feet MSL.
R-6714D Yakima, WA [Amended]
By removing the present boundaries and altitudes and substituting
the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46 deg.38'59''N., long.
120 deg.22'13''W.; to lat. 46 deg.38'59''N., long. 120 deg.23'45''W.;
to lat. 46 deg.40'34''N., long. 120 deg.26'39''W.; to lat.
46 deg.42'19''N., long. 120 deg.26'12''W.; thence to point of
beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 29,000 feet MSL.
R-6714E Yakima, WA [Amended]
By removing the present boundaries and altitudes and substituting
the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46 deg.51'15''N., long.
119 deg.57'57''W.; thence south along the west side of the Columbia
River to lat. 46 deg.42'28''N., long. 119 deg.58'19''W.; thence south
along the west side of the Columbia River to lat. 46 deg.38'59''N.,
long. 119 deg.56'09''W.; to lat. 46 deg.38'08''N., long.
119 deg.56'13''W.; to lat. 46 deg.38'08''N., long. 119 deg.55'04''W.;
to lat. 46 deg.33'55''N., long. 119 deg.55'04''W.; to lat.
46 deg.33'19''N., long. 119 deg.55'04''W.; to lat. 46 deg.32'50''N.,
long. 119 deg.55'04''W.; to lat. 46 deg.32'50''N., long.
120 deg.04'25''W.; to lat. 46 deg.37'03''N., long. 120 deg.20'26''W.;
to lat. 46 deg.37'50''N., long. 120 deg.20'26''W.; to lat.
46 deg.38'29''N., long. 120 deg.20'25''W.; to lat. 46 deg.38'59''N.,
long. 120 deg.22'13''W.; to lat. 46 deg.38'59''N., long.
120 deg.23'45''W.; to lat. 46 deg.40'34''N., long. 120 deg.26'39''W.;
to lat. 46 deg.42'19''N., long. 120 deg.26'12''W.; thence north along
the east side of Interstate Highway 82 to lat. 46 deg.47'49''N., long.
120 deg.21'19''W.; thence north along the east side of Interstate
Highway 82 to lat. 46 deg.49'35''N., long. 120 deg.21'38''W.; to lat.
46 deg.51'09''N., long. 120 deg.21'38''W.; to lat. 46 deg.51'09''N.,
long. 120 deg.16'34''W.; to lat. 46 deg.54'29''N., long.
120 deg.15'04''W.; to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. 29,000 feet MSL to but not including 55,000
feet MSL.
R-6714F Yakima, WA [New]
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46 deg.47'49''N., long.
120 deg.21'19''W.; thence north along the east side of Interstate
Highway 82 to lat. 46 deg.49'35''N., long. 120 deg.21'38''W.; to lat.
46 deg.51'09''N., long. 120 deg.21'38''W.; to lat. 46 deg.51'09''N.,
long. 120 deg.09'02''W; thence to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to 29,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. Intermittent by NOTAM.
Controlling agency. FAA, Seattle ARTCC.
Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, Fort Lewis, WA.
R-6714G Yakima, WA [New]
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46 deg.51'09''N., long.
120 deg.16'34''W.; to lat. 46 deg.54'29''N., long. 120 deg.15'04''W.;
to lat. 46 deg.51'15''N., long. 119 deg.57'57''W.; to lat.
46 deg.51'09''N., long. 120 deg.08'54''W.; thence to point of
beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 29,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. Intermittent by NOTAM.
Controlling agency. FAA, Seattle ARTCC.
Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, Fort Lewis, WA.
R-6714H Yakima, WA [New]
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 46 deg.54'58''N., long.
120 deg.00'33''W.; excluding that airspace within a 1.5-mile radius of
the Vantage Airport to lat. 46 deg.54'39''N., long. 119 deg.59'31''W.;
thence south along the west side of the Wanpaum Road to lat.
46 deg.51'15''N., long. 119 deg.57'57''W,; to lat. 46 deg.54'29''N.,
long. 120 deg.15'04''W,; to lat. 46 deg.55'20''N., long.
120 deg.15'04''W., thence to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 5,500 feet MSL.
Time of designation. Intermittent by NOTAM.
Controlling agency. FAA, Seattle ARTCC.
Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, Fort Lewis, WA.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 1996.
Harold W. Becker,
Acting Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
[FR Doc. 96-9999 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9998 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hettinger, ND
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9998]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-17]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hettinger, ND
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This corrective action changes the effective date for the
establishment of Class E airspace at Hettinger, ND. This delay is
necessary so that the charting dates of the new Global Positioning
System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) and the
Class E airspace area coincide.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of 0901 UTC, April 25, 1996, is
delayed to 0901 UTC, June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter H. Salmon, Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, AGL-530,
Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,
Illinois 60018, telephone (847) 294-7459.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
Airspace Docket no. 95-AGL-17, published in the Federal Register on
March 18, 1996, (53 FR 10886) establishes Class E airspace at
Hettinger, ND. The development of the new GPS SIAP made this action
necessary. This action was originally to become effective on April 25,
1996. The effective date of this action has been delayed until June 20,
1996 so that it coincides with the charting date of the new GPS SIAP.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Delay of Effective Date
The effective date on Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-17 is hereby
delayed from April 25, 1996, to June 20, 1996.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on April 4, 1996.
Maureen Woods,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 96-9998 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9997 Modification of Class E Airspace; Rice Lake, WI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18061-18062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9997]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-19]
Modification of Class E Airspace; Rice Lake, WI
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E5 airspace to accommodate a Very
High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) for runway 19 approach and a
Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) for runway 1/19 approach at Rice Lake
Regional--Carls' Field Airport, Rice Lake, WI. Controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 to 1,200 feet above ground level (AGL) is
needed for aircraft executing the approach. The intended effect of this
action is to provide segregation of aircraft using instrument approach
procedures in instrument conditions from other aircraft operating in
visual weather conditions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter H. Salmon, Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, AGL-530,
Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,
Illinois 60018, telephone (847) 294-7568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On November 24, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to modify the Class E5 at
Rice Lake Regional--Carl's Field Airport, Rice Lake, WI (60 FR 58022).
The proposal was to add controlled airspace extending upward from 700
to 1,200 feet AGL for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in
controlled airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while
transiting between the enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E5 airspace
designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E5
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) modifies Class E airspace to accommodate a Very High
Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) for runway 19 approach and a
Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) for runway 1/19 approach at Rice Lake
Regional--Carl's Field Airport, Rice Lake, WI. Controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 to 1,200 feet AGL is needed for aircraft
executing the approach. The area will be depicted on appropriate
aeronautical charts thereby enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area
or otherwise comply with IFR procedures.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigational (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
[[Page 18062]]
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 The Class E airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the earth
* * * * *
AGL WI E5 Rice Lake, WI [Revised]
Rice Lake Regional--Carl's Field Airport, WI
(Lat. 45 deg.25'14'' N, long. 91 deg.46'25'' W).
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of the Rice Lake Regional--Carl's Field
Airport, excluding that airspace within the Cumberland, WI, E5
airspace area.
* * * * *
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on March 27, 1996.
Maureen Woods,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 96-9997 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9994 Organizational Charter; Removal of Parts
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Parts 375 and 379
Organizational Charter; Removal of Parts
AGENCY: Department of Defense.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document removes Department of Defense's organizational
charters on the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
and the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy)
(ATSD(AE)) codified in the CFR. The parts have served the purpose for
which they were intended in the CFR and are no longer necessary.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Bynum or P. Toppings, 703-697-4111.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD Directive 5122.5 (32 CFR part 375) has
been revised. A change was issued to DoD Directive 5134.8 (32 CFR part
379), changing the organizational name from ``Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy (ATSD(AE))'' to ``Assistant to
the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological
Defense Programs (ATSD(NSB)''. Copies of the basic Directives and
changes thereto may be obtained from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Parts 375 and 379
Organization and functions.
PARTS 375 AND 379--[REMOVED]
Accordingly, by the authority of 10 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR parts 375
and 379 are removed.
Dated: April 19, 1996.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 96-9994 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9980 Use of Sodium Citrate Buffered With Citric Acid in Certain Cured and Uncured Processed Meat and Poultry Products
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18047-18049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9980]
========================================================================
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. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 18047]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 318 and 381
[Docket No. 95-001DF]
RIN 0583-AB97
Use of Sodium Citrate Buffered With Citric Acid in Certain Cured
and Uncured Processed Meat and Poultry Products
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the
Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to permit the
use of a solution of sodium citrate buffered with citric acid in cured
and uncured processed whole-muscle meat and poultry products. This
action is being taken in response to a petition requesting use of the
solution to inhibit the growth of microorganisms, Clostridium botulinum
in particular, and retain product flavor during storage.
DATES: This rule will be effective on June 24, 1996, unless adverse or
critical comments are received on or before May 24, 1996. If adverse or
critical comments are received, FSIS will publish a timely withdrawal
of the final rule and a new proposed rule.
ADDRESSES: Send an original and two copies of written comments or
notice of intent to submit adverse comments to: FSIS Docket Clerk,
DOCKET #95-001DF, Room 4352, South Agriculture Building, 14th and
Independence Avenue, SW., Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-3700. Make oral
comments, as provided for under the Poultry Products Inspection Act
(PPIA), to Mr. Charles R. Edwards, (202) 254-2565, after prior
arrangements have been made with his office. Data submitted by the
petitioner and all comments received, including FSIS-prepared copies of
oral comments, will be available for public inspection from 8:30 a.m.
to 1:00 p.m., and from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
Room 4352, in Room 4352, South Agriculture Building.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles R. Edwards, Director, Product
Assessment Division, Regulatory Programs, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-3700,
(202) 254-2565.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) prohibit
addition of any substance to meat or poultry food products that may
render the products adulterated. Federal meat and poultry inspection
regulations prohibit the use of any substance in the preparation of any
product unless it is approved in the tables of approved substances in 9
CFR 318.7(c)(4) and 381.147(f)(4).
FSIS was petitioned to approve the use of sodium citrate buffered
with citric acid in cured and uncured whole-muscle processed meat and
poultry products to inhibit the growth of microorganisms, Clostridium
botulinum in particular, and to retain product flavor during storage.
The petitioner requested that FSIS amend the regulations to permit
sodium citrate buffered with citric acid to a pH of 5.6 and used at a
level of 1.3 percent of the product formulation weight. Data submitted
by the petitioner showed that after whole-muscle product is immersed in
a marinade or injected with the solution, microbial growth is inhibited
and the product's flavor is retained during storage.
The petitioner provided results of limited microbiological assays
(total plate count, coliforms) and organoleptic (taste) tests conducted
on products at least 6 weeks old. The results show that to effectively
inhibit microbial growth, the sodium citrate must be buffered with
citric acid to a pH of 5.6. The data, also, showed that proteins are
destroyed and the product's appearance and texture becomes unacceptable
to consumers when the buffered sodium citrate solution exceeds 1.3
percent of the product formulation weight.
After reviewing the petitioner's technical data, FSIS determined
that the tables of approved substances in the meat and poultry
regulations should be amended to allow the use of sodium citrate
buffered with citric acid for the purposes and in the amounts requested
by the petitioner. The technical data demonstrate the efficacy of
buffered sodium citrate for these uses. Because sodium citrate and
citric acid are generally recognized as safe (21 CFR 184.1033 and 21
CFR 184.1751) when used in accordance with good manufacturing
practices, the wholesomeness of the product will not be affected.
Therefore, FSIS is amending the tables of approved substances in 9 CFR
318.7(c)(4) and 381.147(f)(4) to allow the use of sodium citrate
buffered with citric acid to a ph of 5.6 in cured and uncured processed
whole-muscle meat and poultry products at a level not to exceed 1.3
percent of the formulation weight of the product.
FSIS expects no adverse public reaction resulting from this change
in regulatory language. Therefore, unless the Agency receives adverse
or critical comments, or a notice of intent to submit adverse comments
within 30 days, the action will become final 60 days after publication
in the Federal Register. If critical comments are received, the final
rulemaking notice will be withdrawn and a proposed rulemaking notice
will be published. The proposed rulemaking notice will establish a
comment period.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule has been determined to be not significant and,
therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
The Administrator has made an initial determination that this
direct final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). The direct final rule will permit the
use of an additional, alternative means of inhibiting the growth of
microorganisms. Use of the buffered sodium citrate solution is
voluntary. Small manufacturers opting to use the solution will be
required to revise their product labels. Decisions by individual
manufacturers on whether to use sodium citrate buffered with citric
acid
[[Page 18048]]
in this manner would be based on their conclusions that the benefits
outweigh the implementation costs.
Executive Order 12778
This direct final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order
12778, Civil Justice Reform. States and local jurisdictions are
preempted by the FMIA and PPIA from imposing any marking or packaging
requirements on federally inspected meat and poultry products that are
in addition to, or different than, those imposed under the FMIA or
PPIA. States and local jurisdictions may, however, exercise concurrent
jurisdiction over meat and poultry products that are outside official
establishments for the purpose of preventing the distribution of meat
and poultry products that are misbranded or adulterated under the FMIA
or PPIA, or, in the case of imported articles, which are not at such an
establishment, after their entry into the United States.
This direct final rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
There are no applicable administrative procedures that must be
exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this
direct final rule. However, the administrative procedures specified in
9 CFR Secs. 306.5 and 9 CFR 381.35, and 7 CFR Sec. 59.310 must be
exhausted prior to any judicial challenge of the application of the
provisions of this direct final rule, if the challenge involves any
decision of an FSIS employee relating to inspection services provided
under the FMIA, or PPIA.
Paperwork Requirements
Abstract: FSIS has reviewed the paperwork and recordkeeping
requirements in this direct final rule. This rule requires
manufacturers that opt to use sodium citrate buffered with citric acid
to revise their product labels and submit such labeling to FSIS for
approval.
Estimate of Burden: FSIS estimates that it takes 60 minutes to
design and modify labels in accordance with these regulations. For
label submissions, FSIS estimates a 15 minute response time to prepare
the label application form, submit it, along with the label, to FSIS or
to a label expediter who will deliver the form and label to FSIS.
Respondents: Meat and poultry product establishments.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 25.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 6,250 hours.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained
from Lee Puricelli, Paperwork Specialist, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, USDA, South Agriculture Building, Room 3812, Washington, DC
20250-3700.
Comments regarding the need for and usefulness of the requirements,
the accuracy of FSIS's burden hour estimate, ways to minimize the
estimated burden, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information collection technology, or any
other aspect of this collection of information discussion, to Lee
Puricelli, Paperwork Specialist, see address above, and Desk Officer
for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.
Comments are requested by June 24, 1996. To be most effective,
comments should be sent to OMB within 30 days of the publication date
of this direct final rule.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 318
Food additives, Meat inspection.
9 CFR Part 381
Food additives, Poultry inspection.
Final Rule
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FSIS is amending 9 CFR
parts 318 and 381 as follows:
PART 318--ENTRY INTO OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS; REINSPECTION AND
PREPARATION OF PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 318 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138F; 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C.
601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
2. In the chart in Sec. 318.7(c)(4), under the Class of substance
``Miscellaneous,'' a new entry for the substance ``Sodium citrate
buffered with citric acid to a pH of 5.6'' is added at the end to read
as follows:
Sec. 318.7 Approval of substances for use in the preparation of
products.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of substance Substance Purpose Products Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Miscellaneous
* * * * * *
*
Sodium citrate To inhibit the Cured and uncured, Not to exceed 1.3
buffered with growth of micro- processed whole- percent of the
citric acid to organisms and muscle meat food formulation weight
a pH of 5.6. retain product products, e.g., ham. of the product in
flavor during accordance with 21
storage. CFR 184.1751.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 381--POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138F; 7 U.S.C. 450; 21 U.S.C. 451-470, 7 CFR
2.18, 2.53.
4. In the table in Sec. 381.147(f)(4), under the Class of substance
``Miscellaneous,'' a new entry for the Substance ``Sodium Citrate
buffered with citric acid to a pH of 5.6'' is added at the end to read
as follows:
Sec. 381.147 Restrictions on the use of substances in poultry
products.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) * * *
[[Page 18049]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of substance Substance Purpose Products Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Miscellaneous
* * * * * *
*
Sodium citrate To inhibit the Cured and uncured, Not to exceed 1.3
buffered with growth of micro- processed whole- percent of the
citric acid to organisms and muscle poultry food formulation weight
a pH of 5.6. retain product products, e.g., of the product in
flavor during chicken breasts. accordance with 21
storage. CFR 184.1751.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Done at Washington, DC, on April 17, 1996.
Michael R. Taylor,
Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety.
[FR Doc. 96-9980 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9960 Electronic Filing of International Airline Passenger Rules Tariffs
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18070-18075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9960]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Part 221
[Docket No. 50355; Notice No. 12]
RIN 2105-AC23
Electronic Filing of International Airline Passenger Rules
Tariffs
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule authorizes airlines to electronically file tariff
rules governing availability of passenger fares and their conditions of
service, subject to certain minimal format requirements. The
Department's regulations have permitted the electronic filing of
passenger fares since 1989. The Department is undertaking this action
in support of the administration's campaign to reinvent government and
at the request of tariff publishing agents in order to extend the
efficiencies of electronic data transmission and processing to the
filing of passenger rules tariffs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective on April 24, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith A. Shangraw or Mr. John H.
Kiser, Office of the Secretary, Office of International Aviation,
Pricing and Multilateral Affairs Division, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366-2435.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 19, 1995, the Department published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to authorize electronic filing of airline tariff
rules governing international passenger fares and the general
conditions of service associated with their use (60 FR 26848). The
proposed action would largely eliminate the filing of paper tariff
rules, an archaic system that no longer meets the data transmission and
processing requirements of the industry or the Department. In addition,
it will save the airline industry over a million dollars in tariff
submission, printing and distribution costs and will substantially
reduce the Department's review, filing and storage expenses.
The Department's regulations have permitted the electronic filing
of
[[Page 18071]]
international passenger fare levels and associated data in tariffs
since 1989, as an alternative to the filing of paper fares tariffs (54
FR 2087, January 19, 1989).1 The regulation, contained in Subpart
W of Part 221, established a number of criteria that must be met for
carriers or their agents to make such filings, including a signed
agreement or agreements providing for the maintenance and security of
the on-line tariff database. Approval by the Department of an
application containing various hardware and software service
commitments, as well as the filer's proposed format, is also required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Associated data include arbitraries, footnotes, routing
numbers and fare class explanations. See 14 CFR sections 221.4 and
221.283.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATPCO, a publishing agent owned by and representing a number of
U.S. and foreign airlines, was initially the only entity that applied
for authority to make electronic fare filings under the rule. In
December 1989, it received final approval from the Department to
commence official electronic filings. On November 28, 1990, ATPCO filed
a petition for rulemaking in Docket 47288, requesting the amendment of
Part 221 to permit the alternative electronic filing of all
international tariffs. The petition included suggested regulatory
changes to accommodate the filing of passenger and cargo rules, and
cargo rates.
In February 1992, the Department permitted ATPCO to begin filing
electronic passenger rules that apply to specific fare types on an
unofficial test basis. The official fare rules, however, continue to be
filed on paper. In addition, ATPCO has not completed development of
electronic formats for general passenger rules relating to conditions
of carriage; these too, continue to be filed on paper.
By a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published October 15, 1992, in
Docket 48385, 57 FR 47303, the Department proposed extensive revisions
to Part 221 to permit the electronic filing of all international
tariffs. Following a comment period and a public meeting, the proposal
was withdrawn for further study of various technical issues, and the
proceeding was terminated. 58 FR 12350, March 4, 1993.
Requests for Further Action
Since the termination of the 1992 rulemaking, ATPCO has informally
urged the Department to take whatever actions may be necessary to
develop the capability for the acceptance and processing of all tariffs
electronically.
In addition, another entity demonstrated interest in filing
international tariffs electronically with the Department. The Societe
Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques (SITA), a tariff
publishing service which developed an electronic tariff filing system
for use in Europe and elsewhere, demonstrated its ProFile system to the
Department's staff and made modifications to accommodate U.S.
requirements and procedures. On June 21, 1994, SITA submitted an
application under section 221.260 for the necessary Department
approvals to permit it to begin filing international passenger tariffs,
encompassing fares and rules to the extent authorized by the
Department, and SITA has filed passenger fares on an unofficial test
basis. However, on November 10, 1995, SITA withdrew its application,
stating that its proposed filing service has not encountered the
anticipated international endorsement by government authorities and
airlines.
The Proposal
In the May 1995 NPRM the Department proposed to amend section
221.251 of Subpart W of its tariff filing regulations, 14 CFR Part 221,
to authorize the electronic filing by all airlines and tariff
publishing agents of any or all rules relating to the provision of
passenger services.2 Like the filing of passenger fare levels
already authorized, this alternative to the traditional paper format
and procedures set forth in Part 221 would be permissive in nature, and
would be governed by the provisions of Subpart W. This Subpart would
authorize the electronic filing of all tariff material relating to
passenger services that airlines are required to file with the
Department, although the existing requirements for final approval of a
particular electronic tariff filing system and its associated formats,
set forth in Subpart W, must be complied with before the Department
will accept authorized electronic filings as official tariffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The proposed amendment to section 221.251, as drafted, did
not encompass the filing of cargo rates and rules tariffs. By a
final rule issued November 30, 1995, the Department exempted all
carriers from the statutory and regulatory duty to file
international property (cargo) tariffs with the Department, and the
carriers ceased filing all cargo rates and rules tariffs on that
date (60 FR 61472).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also proposed to amend section 221.283 of subpart W
to add certain minimum tariff format requirements to provide a basic
working framework for the processing of tariff rules, which differ from
fare filings in many technical respects. The existing format
requirements set forth in section 221.283(b)(8), developed largely for
the processing of fares and associated data, would not be changed but
would be described as specifically applicable to the filing of fares.
The new format requirements for the filing of rules would be set forth
in a new section 221.283(b)(9).3 The provisions would not
necessarily have to be presented in the same order as listed in
proposed section 221.283(b)(9), but each rule would have to include at
least all of the listed provisions.4 Consequential amendments
would be made to provisions regarding maintenance of historical data
(paragraph (c) of section 221.283, and section 221.260(b)(7)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The NPRM also noted that most individual format issues have
been and will continue to be resolved through consultations between
the Department and individual filing agents, as provided in section
221.260(b)(1) of the current regulations. However, the Department
recognizes that there may be a need to propose further amendments to
Part 221 to deal comprehensively with general format and procedural
issues, as well as with the question of the appropriate filing fees
to be charged in the future, as soon as more data and experience are
available.
\4\ We would consider each provision of an electronic tariff
rule to be a ``record'' for purposes of assessing filing fees under
14 CFR sections 389.20(b) and 389.25(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three format issues were raised for comment in the NPRM. First, our
proposed format criteria did not address the filing format of so-called
``general'' fare rules and ``unpublished fare'' rules. General fare
rules typically include provisions, applicable to all passengers,
relating to general conditions of carriage such as liability, baggage,
fare construction, and refunds. Unpublished fare rules typically
establish discounts for certain classes of traffic not limited to
specific markets, e.g., children and infants, agents, tour conductors,
emigrants and cargo attendants. Electronic formats for filing general
and unpublished fare rules are still under development by the industry.
Second, we proposed not to accept ``Intentionally Left Blank'' as a
category entry in an electronic fare rule, nor would we accept the
complete omission of a rule category to serve as a default to a general
rule.5 These practices, which have been a source of confusion in
the paper filing environment, would become increasingly confusing in an
environment where the fare rules are filed electronically but the
general rules are still filed on paper. Where carriers wish to default
to a general rule for a particular condition, we proposed to require
that electronic rules contain a specific entry for each category in the
rule. The entry could be either a specific reference to the relevant
general rule or
[[Page 18072]]
specific conditions extracted from the general rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Under the Department's interpretation, where a particular
provision is intentionally left blank in a rule, no such provision
applies to the fare covered by the rule. For example, where the
``group requirements'' section is left blank, it means there are no
group requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, in the test electronic rules we have received thus far,
carriers have been including some extraneous material that is not
properly part of a tariff and of which we take no regulatory notice,
e.g., provisions concerning ticket and booking codes and annotations,
wait listing procedures, and reservation record requirements. We
recognize that carriers submit such material to their filing agents
along with associated fare and rule changes for non-regulatory
purposes, such as notifying computer reservations systems of the
carrier's technical procedures. However, this extraneous material is
not approved by the Department, and its inclusion in official
electronic rules would cause confusion. Therefore, our proposal
precluded inclusion of such material in official electronic tariff
filings.
Comments
We received comments on our proposal from Aer Lingus; Air France;
ATPCO; American Airlines, Inc.; British Airways, PLC; SITA; United Air
Lines, Inc.; and USAir, Inc.6 In general, all commenters support
the proposal in principle. Most, however, expressed reservations
concerning the formatting issues discussed in the NPRM. The formatting
drawing the most extensive comments from carriers and agents involves
the filing of ``extraneous material''. ATPCO also commented extensively
on issues relating to general rule defaults and formats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The submissions of Aer Lingus and Air France were both
accompanied by motions to file comments out of time, which we will
grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision
We have decided to adopt the rule substantially as proposed.
However, we will make certain changes regarding the formatting issues
in response to the comments.
Discussion of Comments and Issues
Scope of the Proposed Rule
ATPCO requests that the Department take a broader, more flexible
approach that authorizes electronic filing of all tariff material,
subject only to DOT's approval of the filer's format, rather than the
narrow approach, limited to passenger fare rules, it believes has been
taken here. ATPCO contends that Departmental references to future Part
221 amendments, relating to general format and procedural issues and to
filing fees, suggest that the Department is contemplating future
massive changes to Part 221 which would substantially change
requirements governing electronic filing. APTCO has no objection if
these are references to future rulemaking proceedings to ``tie up loose
ends''. However, it does object if the Department is contemplating
sweeping changes to electronic filing rules in place. At a minimum,
ATPCO believes that the Department should explain its future plans for
adopting a comprehensive electronic tariff-filing rule.
It appears that ATPCO has misunderstood the scope and intent of our
NPRM and believes that the proposed rule only authorizes the electronic
filing of passenger fare rules. In fact, proposed Part 221.251 (a)
states that ``[a]ny carrier * * * may file its international passenger
fare tariffs and international passenger rules tariffs electronically *
* *''. This includes passenger fare rules and general rules. While the
Department has indicated that additional changes in Part 221 may be
necessary to deal with general format and procedural issues, we have
resolved most individual format issues, in the past, through
consultations with individual filing agents, as provided in section
221.260(b)(1) of the current regulations, and fully expect to make use
of this process in the future. Thus ATPCO's general rule format, when
it is developed, could be reviewed and approved by the Department
independently of any future amendments to Part 221. The same process
could also apply to formats for the electronic filing of unpublished
fare rules and for routing tariffs.
Intentionally Left Blank
ATPCO also requested elimination of the proposed format criteria
under which the Department would not accept ``Intentionally Left
Blank'' as a category entry in an electronic fare rule, or the complete
omission of a rule category to serve as a default to a general rule.
While not objecting to the exclusion of ``Intentionally Left Blank'',
ATPCO is concerned about a required specific reference to the general
rule or conditions extracted from the general rule. It argues that this
would impose a greater regulatory burden than is now required for paper
filings where, in the absence of a provision in a fare rule, the
general rules tariff applies without the need to specify the general
rule. In addition, while ATPCO is presently developing a general rules
format which will provide a ``logical path'' from the fare rule to the
general rule, it maintains that this will not be operational until the
second half of 1996. This delay, it contends, should not prevent users
from reaping the benefits of the electronic filing of fare rules.
Otherwise, it would have to continue to file its rules on paper until
its general rules system is operational, or longer if the Department
requires another rulemaking proceeding.
As noted in the NPRM, the use of ``Intentionally Left Blank'' can
be quite misleading, especially in an electronic filing environment.
This language can be interpreted in two quite different ways: it can be
perceived to mean that there are no provisions applicable for that rule
category, or it can be viewed as a default to provisions set forth in
the general rule. This kind of ambiguity is not acceptable in an
electronic filing environment. Clarity of tariff material has always
been a prime objective of the Department's tariff regulations, and we
affirm our proposal not to accept ``Intentionally Left Blank'' in
electronic rules. We are, however, mindful of ATPCO's statement that it
is developing a logical path from the fare rule to the general rule,
and, therefore, we will not adopt our proposal in the NPRM to require
that the fare rule contain either a specific reference to the
applicable portion of the general rule or an actual extract taken from
the general rule. We believe that any remaining issues related to the
exclusion of ``Intentionally Left Blank'' can be resolved in the
context of an application by ATPCO for approval of its specific
electronic rule filing formats.
``Extraneous Material''
As noted, the formatting issue prompting the most extensive
comments from carriers and agents involves the filing of ``extraneous
material'', such as ticket and booking codes, wait list procedures and
reservations requirements. In general, ATPCO and the U.S. carriers
argue that this information is vital not only to carrier CRS's, but
also to travel agents and the public, since it is essential for the
proper handling of passenger reservations. ATPCO maintains that its
existing, unified filing system is designed to present this information
to all users in the most cost effective, efficient and flexible way.
However, were the requirement regarding non-filing of extraneous
material adopted, the respondents contend that ATPCO would have to
either undertake an expensive and time consuming creation of a separate
data base for the Department, or would have to continue to file carrier
fare rules on paper. ATPCO estimates that ``extraneous information''
constitutes no more than ten percent of the fare rule information, and
believes that filing it on a ``for information purposes only'' basis
would not unduly burden DOT.
[[Page 18073]]
In addition, SITA, supported by British Airways and Air France,
asserts that the Department should accept ticket codes and annotations,
wait listing procedures and reservations record requirements as proper
material for filing in official electronic tariffs. They contend that
this material is part of the conditions imposed by the carriers on a
passenger's use of a fare and, therefore, should be part of the
official filed tariff. This viewpoint, they argue, is supported by two
of the new format requirements proposed in the NPRM which would require
carriers to include specific material relating to reservations/
ticketing and capacity control in their official tariff filings.
Upon consideration of the comments, we have decided not to preclude
inclusion of such material in official electronic tariff filings at
this time, provided that it is sufficiently identified as unofficial
and non-binding. As a threshold matter, we are not persuaded by SITA
and the two foreign carriers that this material should be filed for
approval in official tariffs. While these codes, procedures and other
provisions may have certain informational value for agents and other
carriers, they are not needed by the Department to evaluate proper
tariff material or otherwise perform its regulatory duties, and they
are not, nor have they ever been, reviewed for legal sufficiency or
approved in amy manner under our statute. Moreover, we believe that the
presence of such unofficial material in official filings could
potentially mislead passengers, courts or other carriers into the
assumption that it has the binding legal effect normally accorded to
official tariff material. At the same time, however, we are persuaded
that requiring the immediate exclusion of such material would create an
implementation burden and impose additional programming costs on
carriers and filing agents. While, in the long run, we expect that all
filers will review their software formats and procedures to minimize
the amount of extraneous material appearing in official electronic
filings with the Department, material of the nature may accompany
tariffs provided that it is clearly identified as ``for information
only; not part of official tariff'' in a manner acceptable to the
Department.7 Should confusion persist that such material may be
binding on carriers and passengers as a matter of statute, we may have
to take further action to alleviate the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The determination of whether certain fare rule elements are
extraneous and not proper tariff material can be complex. Therefore,
we reserve the right to determine whether material filed ``for
information only; not part of official tariff'' is proper tariff
material or not, and to take appropriate regulatory action should we
decide that it is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We wish to reiterate that the amendments proposed leave in place
the procedural and technical requirements of Subpart W, which each
electronic filer must satisfy before official electronic rule filings
can be accepted. In addition to those listed in section 221.260, for
example, are provisions such as those in section 221.500 regarding the
submission of machine-readable copies of records existing when
electronic filing is implemented, and the cancellation of records from
the paper tariff. As noted above, section 221.260 includes the
requirement that the Department approve the precise format used by each
electronic filer before official filings can be made. This is normally
done by letter once a period of successful test filings has been
accomplished and the Department is satisfied that the filing system
meets regulatory needs. However, Subpart W also imposes continuing
performance requirements, violations of which could lead to enforcement
action or even withdrawal of electronic filing privileges.
Finally, we would note that the success of electronic rules filing
will depend on scrupulous adherence to the Department's regulatory
requirements by both carriers and their filing agents. The Department's
staff will be closely monitoring performance in this regard, and will
work with parties to ensure the utility and integrity of the electronic
tariff system.
We find good cause to make this rule effective upon publication
because it allows an alternative means of compliance and relieves
current restrictions.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and,
therefore, not subject to OMB review. The Department has determined
that the rule is not significant under the Department's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 CFR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979). The rule reduces
the paperwork burden for all U.S. and foreign air carriers now filing
their passenger rules tariffs on paper. The Department expects the
economic impact of the rule, however, to be modest. The rule will not
result in any required additional costs to the carriers or the public.
It will simply provide an alternative method of meeting the statutory
tariff-filing requirements. The estimated savings are discussed below.
Executive Order 12612
This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism''), and the
Department has determined the rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The tariff filing
requirements apply to scheduled service air carriers. The vast majority
of the air carriers filing international (``foreign'') passenger rules
tariffs are large operators with revenues in excess of several million
dollars each year. Small air carriers operating aircraft with 60 seats
or less and 18,000 pounds payload or less that offer on-demand air-taxi
service are not required to file such tariffs.
Paperwork Reduction Act
With respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act, this rule would
replace two paper filings for most rules with a single electronic
filing. Thus, while this rule will significantly reduce the paperwork
burden on government and industry, it does not eliminate information
collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget pursuant to the Act.
The Department estimates that filing of passenger tariff rule pages
in paper format will be reduced by about ninety percent, with the
remaining ten percent continuing to be filed in paper form. A total of
about 42,000 passenger tariff rule pages and about 6,400 Passenger
Special Tariff Permission Applications (STPA's) were filed in 1994. At
a filing fee of $2 a rule page and $12 a passenger STPA, we estimate
the carriers could save as much as $145,000 annually in filing fees
paid to the Department. In addition, ATPCO charges the carriers $35.00
for each filed tariff page and up to $30.00 for each STPA. On this
basis, we estimate that the rule could save the carriers an additional
$1,500,000 in associated fees paid to ATPCO, producing potential total
savings to the carriers in excess of $1,600,000.
While not estimated, we expect that costs of governmental review,
filing and archiving of paper tariff rule filings will be similarly
reduced.
The reduction in reporting and recordkeeping requirements
associated with this rule are being submitted to
[[Page 18074]]
OMB for approval in accordance with 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 under OMB NO.
2137-AC23; Administration: Department of Transportation; TITLE:
Electronic Filing of Passenger Service Rules Tariffs; NEED FOR
INFORMATION: Authorizes the electronic filing of rules governing the
provision of passenger services; PROPOSED USE OF INFORMATION:
Authorization is based on the request of tariff publishing agents to
extend the efficiencies of electronic data transmission and processing
to the filing of rules tariffs; FREQUENCY: An initial passenger tariff
rule filing is required of each respondent; changes are voluntary,
whenever an air carrier elects; ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN UNDER NEW
RULE: 1,312,480 hours; RESPONDENTS: 230; FORM(S) 26,681 electronic
filings, pages or applications per annum; AVERAGE BURDEN HOURS PER
RESPONDENT: 5706 hours.
For further information on paperwork reduction contact: The
Information Requirements Division, M-34, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, (202)
366-4735 or DOT Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New
Executive Office Building, Room 3228, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Regulation Identifier Number
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 221
Air rates and fares, Agents, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth herein, and under authority delegated in
49 CFR 1.56(j)(2)(ii), the Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR
Part 221 as follows:
PART 221--TARIFFS
Subpart W--Electronically Filed Tariffs
1. The authority citation for Part 221 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 USC 40101, 40109, 40113, 46101, 46102, Chapter
411, Chapter 413, Chapter 415, and Subchapter I of Chapter 417.
2. Section 221.251 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 221.251 Applicability of the subpart.
(a) Any carrier, consistent with the provisions of this subpart,
and part 221 generally, may file its international passenger fares
tariffs and international passenger rules tariffs electronically in
machine-readable form as an alternative to the filing of printed paper
tariffs as provided for elsewhere in Part 221. This subpart applies to
all carriers and tariff publishing agents and may be used by either if
the carrier or agent complies with the provisions of subpart W. Any
carrier or agent that files electronically under this subpart must
transmit to the Department the remainder of the tariff, as applicable,
in a form consistent with this Part 221, subparts A through V, on the
same day that the electronic tariff would be deemed received under
Sec. 221.270(b).
* * * * *
3. Paragraph (b)(7) of section 221.260, is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 221.260 Requirements for filing.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) The filer shall maintain all fares and rules with the
Department and all Departmental approvals, disapprovals and other
actions, as well as all Departmental notations concerning such
approvals, disapprovals or other actions, in the on-line tariff
database for a period of two (2) years after the fare or rule becomes
inactive. After this period of time, the carrier or agent shall provide
the Department, free of charge, with a copy of the inactive date on a
machine-readable tape or other mutually acceptable electronic medium.
* * * * *
4. Section 221.283 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b)(8) and by adding new paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10) to
read as follows:
Sec. 221.283 The filing of tariffs and amendments to tariffs.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) Fares tariff, or proposed changes to the fares tariffs,
including: * * *
(9) Rules tariff, or proposed changes to the rules tariffs.
(i) Rules tariffs shall include:
(A) Title: General description of fare rule type and geographic
area under the rule;
(B) Application: Specific description of fare class, geographic
area, type of transportation (one way, round-trip, etc.);
(C) Period of Validity: Specific description of permissible travel
dates and any restrictions on when travel is not permitted;
(D) Reservations/ticketing: Specific description of reservation and
ticketing provisions, including any advance reservation/ticketing
requirements, provisions for payment (including prepaid tickets), and
charges for any changes;
(E) Capacity Control: Specific description of any limitation on the
number of passengers, available seats, or tickets;
(F) Combinations: Specific description of permitted/restricted fare
combinations;
(G) Length of Stay: Specific description of minimum/maximum number
of days before the passenger may/must begin return travel;
(H) Stopovers: Specific description of permissible conditions,
restrictions, or charges on stopovers;
(I) Routing: specific description of routing provisions, including
transfer provisions, whether on-line or inter-line;
(J) Discounts: Specific description of any limitations, special
conditions, and discounts on status fares, e.g. children or infants,
senior citizens, tour conductors, or travel agents, and any other
discounts;
(K) Cancellation and Refunds: Specific description of any special
conditions, charges, or credits due for cancellation or changes to
reservations, or for request for refund of purchased tickets;
(L) Group Requirements: Specific description of group size, travel
conditions, group eligibility, and documentation;
(M) Tour Requirements: Specific description of tour requirements,
including minimum price, and any stay or accommodation provisions;
(N) Sales Restrictions: Specific description of any restrictions on
the sale of tickets;
(O) Rerouting: Specific description of rerouting provisions,
whether on-line or inter-line, including any applicable charges; and
(P) Miscellaneous provisions: Any other applicable conditions.
(ii) Rules tariffs shall not contain the phrase ``intentionally
left blank''.
(10) Any material accepted by the Department for informational
purposes only shall be clearly identified as ``for information only,
not part of official tariff'', in a manner acceptable to the
Department.
5. Paragraph (c) of Sec. 221.283 is amended by redesignating
existing paragraphs (c) (8) through (15) as paragraphs (c) (9) through
(16), respectively, and by adding a new paragraph (c)(8) to read as
follows:
[[Page 18075]]
Sec. 221.283 The filing of tariffs and amendments to tariffs.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(8) Rule text.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington DC, on this 15th day of April, 1996.
Charles A. Hunnicutt,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-9960 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9926 Civil Monetary Penalties, Assessments and Recommended Exclusions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18078-18081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9926]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Part 498
RIN 0960-AE23
Civil Monetary Penalties, Assessments and Recommended Exclusions
AGENCY: Office of the Inspector General (OIG), SSA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes procedures to impose civil
monetary penalties and assessments against certain Old-Age, Survivors,
and Disability Insurance beneficiaries, Supplemental Security Income
recipients, third parties, physicians, medical providers, and other
individuals and entities who make false statements or representations
for use in determining any right to or amount of title II or title XVI
benefits under the Social Security Act. This final rule implements the
civil monetary penalty provisions of section 206(b) of the Social
Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective May 24, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Judith A. Kidwell, Office of the
Inspector General, (410) 965-9750.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register on November 27, 1995, (60 FR 58305) which proposed to
establish procedures to implement the civil monetary penalty (CMP)
provisions of section 206(b) of the Social Security Independence and
Program Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law 103-296, which added
section 1129 of the Social Security Act (the Act), effective October 1,
1994. Section 108 of Public Law 103-296 made additional conforming
amendments to section 1129, effective March 31, 1995, to reflect the
Social Security Administration's (SSA) new status as an independent
agency.
The 60-day public comment period closed on January 26, 1996. We
received comments on the NPRM from only one commenter, a disability law
center. The comments, our responses, and the final rule, with several
technical changes we have made, are discussed below.
Since we have made only technical changes, we are adopting the
regulations as proposed.
Public Comments on the Proposed Regulations
The commenter was concerned that the regulations were overly broad
and that there were unaddressed problems at the SSA which would
increase the likelihood of an overbroad application of these rules to
claimants and their representatives. The substantive comments made by
the commenter and our responses are summarized below.
Comment: The commenter raised concerns that the proposed
regulations were overbroad in defining when a person has made or caused
to be made a statement, representation, or omission of material fact,
inasmuch as the basis and purpose statement in Sec. 498.100 does not
include an intent requirement.
Response: Section 498.100 has been developed to briefly catalog the
general types of penalty and assessment authorities that will be in
part 498. This section is not intended to include the legally operative
language to impose a penalty or assessment. Such language can be found
in Secs. 498.101 through 498.132.
Comment: The commenter expressed a concern that the definition of
material fact at Sec. 498.101 is not limited to facts that might have
made a difference in the eligibility decision.
Response: The definition of ``material fact'' which appears in the
NPRM is taken verbatim from section 1129(a)(2) of the Act.
Comment: Although the commenter acknowledged that Sec. 498.102
contains elements of intent, it raised a concern that the basis for
imposition of CMPs does not adequately link misstatements and omissions
to an intent to fraudulently obtain benefits.
Response: Section 498.102 carefully tracks the language of section
1129(a)(1) of the Act. In order to impose a penalty or assessment under
Sec. 498.102, the OIG must determine that an individual knew or should
have known that his or her statement or representation was false or
misleading or omitted a material fact, or that the individual made the
false or misleading statement with knowing disregard for the truth.
Comment: The commenter recited an example of an experience to
illustrate problems it perceived with this rule. The commenter also
expressed concerns that: (1) The vast majority of claimants do not
understand eligibility and reporting requirements; (2) because of staff
reductions, access to SSA staff for information is limited; (3) the
ability of SSA staff to completely and accurately relate program
requirements varies widely; (4) SSA pamphlets are difficult for persons
with learning disabilities and limited education or English skills; and
(5) SSA record keeping is such that it is not unusual for records to be
lost.
Response: Many of these comments are more appropriately directed to
the administration of SSA programs and are not within the scope of this
rule. However, we would like to point out that section 1129 of the Act
is directed toward those persons who defraud the SSA's programs or
receive benefits or payments to which they are not entitled, and that
steps have been taken to address due process concerns and ensure that
innocent persons are not penalized.
As required by section 1129 of the Act, the respondent will be
notified of a proposed penalty in a manner authorized by Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, except with respect to
affirmative defenses and mitigating circumstances, the burden of
persuasion is on the Government in CMP cases. Finally, the
[[Page 18079]]
SSA plans to go beyond the requirements of the statute to ensure due
process with respect to the CMP process. The statute requires only that
a person be given ``an opportunity for the determination to be made on
the record after a hearing at which the person is entitled to be
represented by counsel, to present witnesses, and to cross-examine
witnesses against the person.'' The SSA intends to enter into an
agreement with the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services to conduct the hearings in
these cases because of the DAB's expertise with CMP cases involving
Medicare and Medicaid fraud over a period of more than 10 years. SSA
plans to include an appeal to the appellate division of the DAB in the
administrative review process which will provide an additional
opportunity for the respondent to address legal issues before being
required to litigate in federal court.
Comment: The commenter expressed concerns that the imposition of
CMP magnifies the dilemma of the sometimes competing duties of zealous
representation, client confidentiality, and candor towards the
tribunal. The commenter opines that the rule will: (1) Interfere with
the obligation of advocates to determine the relevance or evidentiary
value of information being considered for admission for the record; (2)
require representatives to determine what is a material fact and what
is opinion; and (3) magnify the dilemma of competing duties of
representation, client confidentiality and candor towards the tribunal.
Response: As acknowledged by the commenter, attorneys and
paralegals supervised by attorneys are bound by federal and state codes
of professional conduct. We do not believe that ``zealous
representation'' would ever include knowingly assisting in presenting
or supplying false information to the SSA in order to obtain benefits
or payments for a client.
Comment: The commenter indicated that representatives should not be
required to submit potentially prejudicial reports or face CMP without
the availability of an enforceable subpoena for the report writer.
Response: The Inspector General (IG) has the authority under the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to obtain such information
through the issuance of subpoenas during a fraud investigation
involving the SSA's programs or operations. Additional subpoena
authority exists at sections 205(d) and 1129(i) of the Act.
Comment: The commenter expressed concerns that Sec. 498.109 does
not allow for a showing of good cause for a late request for a hearing,
and suggested that the OIG should send a second notice by certified
mail.
Response: The SSA's proposed hearing regulations which will be
published in the Federal Register in the near future will give the
administrative law judge the authority to grant a late request for a
hearing upon a showing of good cause. We have revised Sec. 498.109 of
this final rule to reflect this good cause exception.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and have determined that these rules do not meet the criteria for a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Thus, they
are not subject to OMB review.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These regulations impose no new reporting or record keeping
requirements requiring OMB clearance.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have determined that no regulatory impact analysis is required
for these final regulations. While the penalties and assessments which
the IG could impose as a result of section 1129 of the Act and these
regulations might have a slight impact on small entities, we do not
anticipate that a substantial number of these small entities will be
significantly affected by this rulemaking. Based on our determination,
the IG certifies that these regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Any
impact on small businesses would primarily be a result of the
legislation rather than these regulations. Therefore, we have not
prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social
Security-Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security-Retirement
Insurance; 96.004, Social Security-Survivors Insurance; and 96.006,
Supplemental Security Income Program)
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 498
Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud, and Penalties.
Approved: April 16, 1996.
David C. Williams,
Inspector General.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 498 of chapter III of
title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below:
PART 498--CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDED
EXCLUSIONS
1. The authority citation for part 498 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1129, and 1140 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1320a-8, and 1320b-10).
2. Section 498.100 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)
introductory text and adding paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 498.100 Basis and purpose.
(a) Basis. This part implements sections 1129 and 1140 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8 and 1320b-10).
(b) Purpose. This part provides for the imposition of civil
monetary penalties and assessments, as applicable, against persons
who--
(1) Make or cause to be made false statements or representations,
or omissions of material fact for use in determining any right to or
amount of benefits under title II or benefits or payments under title
XVI of the Social Security Act; or
* * * * *
3. Section 498.101 is amended by adding the following definitions
and revising the definition of ``Respondent'' to read as follows:
Sec. 498.101 Definitions.
* * * * *
Assessment means the amount described in Sec. 498.104, and includes
the plural of that term.
* * * * *
Material fact means a fact which the Commissioner of Social
Security may consider in evaluating whether an applicant is entitled to
benefits under title II or eligible for benefits or payments under
title XVI of the Social Security Act.
* * * * *
Respondent means the person upon whom the Commissioner or the
Inspector General has imposed, or intends to impose, a penalty and
assessment, as applicable.
* * * * *
4. Section 498.102 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 498.102 Basis for civil monetary penalties and assessments.
(a) The Office of the Inspector General may impose a penalty and
assessment, as applicable, against any person whom it determines in
accordance with this part--
(1) Has made, or caused to be made, a statement or representation
of a
[[Page 18080]]
material fact for use in determining any initial or continuing right to
or amount of:
(i) Monthly insurance benefits under title II of the Social
Security Act; or
(ii) Benefits or payments under title XVI of the Social Security
Act; and
(2)(i) Knew, or should have known, that the statement or
representation--
(A) Was false or misleading; or
(B) Omitted a material fact; or
(ii) Made such statement with knowing disregard for the truth.
* * * * *
5. Section 498.103 is amended by adding paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 498.103 Amount of penalty.
(a) Under Sec. 498.102(a), the Office of the Inspector General may
impose a penalty of not more than $5,000 for each false statement or
representation.
* * * * *
6. Section 498.104 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 498.104 Amount of assessment.
A person subject to a penalty determined under Sec. 498.102(a) may
be subject, in addition, to an assessment of not more than twice the
amount of benefits or payments paid as a result of the statement or
representation which was the basis for the penalty. An assessment is in
lieu of damages sustained by the United States because of such
statement or representation.
7. Section 498.106 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 498.106 Determinations regarding the amount or scope of penalties
and assessments.
(a) In determining the amount or scope of any penalty and
assessment, as applicable, in accordance with Secs. 498.103(a) and
498.104, the Office of the Inspector General will take into account:
(1) The nature of the statements and representations referred to in
Sec. 498.102(a) and the circumstances under which they occurred;
(2) The degree of culpability of the person committing the offense;
(3) The history of prior offenses of the person committing the
offense;
(4) The financial condition of the person committing the offense;
and
(5) Such other matters as justice may require.
* * * * *
8. Section 498.108 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 498.108 Penalty and assessment not exclusive.
Penalties and assessments, as applicable, imposed under this part
are in addition to any other penalties prescribed by law.
9. Section 498.109 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 498.109 Notice of proposed determination.
(a) If the Office of the Inspector General seeks to impose a
penalty and assessment, as applicable, it will serve written notice of
the intent to take such action. The notice will include:
(1) Reference to the statutory basis for the proposed penalty and
assessment, as applicable;
(2) A description of the false statements, representations, and
incidents, as applicable, with respect to which the penalty and
assessment, as applicable, are proposed;
(3) The amount of the proposed penalty and assessment, as
applicable;
(4) Any circumstances described in Sec. 498.106 that were
considered when determining the amount of the proposed penalty and
assessment, as applicable; and
(5) Instructions for responding to the notice, including
(i) A specific statement of respondent's right to a hearing; and
(ii) A statement that failure to request a hearing within 60 days
permits the imposition of the proposed penalty and assessment, as
applicable, without right of appeal.
(b) Any person upon whom the Office of the Inspector General has
proposed the imposition of a penalty and assessment, as applicable, may
request a hearing on such proposed penalty and assessment.
(c) If the respondent fails to exercise the respondent's right to a
hearing within the time permitted under this section, and does not
demonstrate good cause for such failure before an administrative law
judge, any penalty and assessment, as applicable, becomes final.
10. Section 498.110 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 498.110 Failure to request a hearing.
If the respondent does not request a hearing within the time
prescribed by Sec. 498.109(a), the Office of the Inspector General may
seek the proposed penalty and assessment, as applicable, or any less
severe penalty and assessment. The Office of the Inspector General
shall notify the respondent by certified mail, return receipt
requested, of any penalty and assessment, as applicable, that has been
imposed and of the means by which the respondent may satisfy the amount
owed.
11. Section 498.114 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 498.114 Collateral estoppel.
In a proceeding under section 1129 of the Social Security Act
that--
(a) Is against a person who has been convicted (whether upon a
verdict after trial or upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere) of a
Federal or State crime charging fraud or false statements; and
(b) Involves the same transactions as in the criminal action, the
person is estopped from denying the essential elements of the criminal
offense.
12. Section 498.127 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 498.127 Judicial review.
Sections 1129 and 1140 of the Social Security Act authorize
judicial review of any penalty and assessment, as applicable, that has
become final. Judicial review may be sought by a respondent only in
regard to a penalty and assessment, as applicable, with respect to
which the respondent requested a hearing, unless the failure or neglect
to urge such objection is excused by the court because of extraordinary
circumstances.
13. Section 498.128 is amended by revising the section heading,
paragraph (a), and adding paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 498.128 Collection of penalty and assessment.
(a) Once a determination has become final, collection of any
penalty and assessment, as applicable, will be the responsibility of
the Commissioner or his or her designee.
(b) In cases brought under section 1129 of the Social Security Act,
a penalty and assessment, as applicable, imposed under this part may be
compromised by the Commissioner or his or her designee, and may be
recovered in a civil action brought in the United States District Court
for the district where the statement or representation referred to in
Sec. 498.102(a) was made, or where the respondent resides.
* * * * *
(d) As specifically provided under the Social Security Act, in
cases brought under section 1129 of the Social Security Act, the amount
of a penalty and assessment, as applicable, when finally determined, or
the amount agreed upon in compromise, may also be deducted from:
(1) Monthly title II or title XVI payments, notwithstanding section
207 of the Social Security Act as made
[[Page 18081]]
applicable to title XVI by section 1631(d)(1) of the Social Security
Act;
(2) A tax refund to which a person is entitled to after notice to
the Secretary of the Treasury under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3720A;
(3) By authorities provided under the Debt Collection Act of 1982,
as amended, 31 U.S.C. 3711, to the extent applicable to debts arising
under the Social Security Act; or
(4) Any combination of the foregoing.
(e) Matters that were raised or that could have been raised in a
hearing before an administrative law judge or in an appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals under sections 1129 or 1140 of the
Social Security Act may not be raised as a defense in a civil action by
the United States to collect a penalty and assessment, as applicable,
under this part.
14. Section 498.129 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 498.129 Notice to other agencies.
As provided in section 1129 of the Social Security Act, when a
determination to impose a penalty and assessment, as applicable, with
respect to a physician or medical provider becomes final, the Office of
the Inspector General will notify the Secretary of the final
determination and the reasons therefore.
15. Section 498.132 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 498.132 Limitations.
The Office of the Inspector General may initiate a proceeding in
accordance with Sec. 498.109(a) to determine whether to impose a
penalty and assessment, as applicable--
(a) In cases brought under section 1129 of the Social Security Act,
after receiving authorization from the Attorney General pursuant to
procedures agreed upon by the Inspector General and the Attorney
General; and
(b) Within 6 years from the date on which the violation was
committed.
[FR Doc. 96-9926 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9922 Land Acquisitions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18082-18083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9922]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 151
[1076-AD65]
Land Acquisitions
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a 30-day waiting period after final
administrative decisions to acquire land into trust under the Indian
Reorganization Act and other federal statutes. The Department is
establishing this waiting period so that parties seeking review of
final decisions by the Interior Board of Indian Appeals or of decisions
of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, will have notice of
administrative decisions to take land into trust before title is
actually transferred. This notice allows interested parties to seek
judicial or other review under the Administrative Procedure Act and
applicable regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jane Sheppard, Staff Attorney,
Office of the Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, Room 6456, Main
Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone
(202) 208-6260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 15, 1991, the proposed rule for off-
reservation land acquisitions for Indian tribes was published in the
Federal Register (56 FR 32278-32280). On June 23, 1995, the final rule
was published at 60 FR 32878. That rulemaking supplemented the existing
regulations in part 151. This procedural rule adds a subsection to
existing 25 CFR 151.12, Action on requests.
Background
In response to a recent court decision, State of South Dakota v.
U.S. Department of the Interior, 69 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 1995), the
Department of the Interior is establishing a procedure to ensure the
opportunity for judicial review of administrative decisions to acquire
title to lands in trust for Indian tribes and individual Indians under
section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) (Pub. L. 73-383, 48
Stat. 984-988, 25 U.S.C. 465). Following consideration of the factors
in the current regulations and completion of the title examination, the
Department, through Federal Register notice, or other notice to
affected members of the public, will announce any final administrative
determination to take land in trust. The Secretary will not acquire
title to the land in trust until at least 30 days after publication of
the announcement. This procedure permits judicial review before
transfer of title to the United States. The Quiet Title Act (QTA), 28
U.S.C. 2409a, precludes judicial review after the United States
acquires title. See, e.g., United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834
(1986); North Dakota v. Block, 461 U.S. 273 (1983); Florida v.
Department of Interior, 768 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1985).
Section 5 of the IRA authorizes the Secretary to acquire land in
trust for Indians and Indian tribes: (1) Within or adjacent to an
Indian reservation; or (2) for purposes of facilitating tribal self-
determination, economic development, or Indian housing. State of South
Dakota, a case involving an off-reservation trust land acquisition,
held Section 5 of the IRA unconstitutional on the ground that it
violates the nondelegation doctrine. The court's decision was based in
substantial part on the understanding that judicial review is not
available to challenge the Secretary's action. The court noted that
``judicial review is a factor weighing in favor of upholding a statute
against a nondelegation challenge.'' This rule ensures that such review
is available before formal conveyance of title to land to the United
States, when the QTA's bar to judicial review becomes operative.
Judicial review is available
[[Page 18083]]
under the APA because the IRA does not preclude judicial review and the
agency action is not committed to agency discretion by law within the
meaning of the APA.
While the Eighth Circuit decision precludes the Secretary from
taking into trust the land at issue in that particular case, new trust
acquisitions will be made on a case-by-case basis. The procedure
announced in today's rule, however, will apply to all pending and
future trust acquisitions.
The Department certifies that this procedural rule meets the
standards provided in Sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive Order
12778.
The Department has determined that this rule:
--Does not have significant federalism effects.
--Will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).
--Does not have significant takings implications under E.O. 12630.
--Does not have significant effects on the economy, nor will it result
in increases in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local governments, agencies, or geographical
regions.
--Does not have any adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or the export/import market.
--Is categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 because it is of an administrative, technical, and procedural
nature. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is warranted.
This rule is not a significant rule under E.O. 12866 and does not
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804. The
annual number of tribal requests to place lands in trust is small.
There will be costs incurred by a party seeking judicial review. The
author of this rule is: Mary Jane Sheppard, Office of the Solicitor,
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Because this is a procedural rule under Section 553(b)(3)(A) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., it is exempt
from requirements for notice and comment rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 151
Indians--lands.
For reasons set out in the preamble, Part 151 of Title 25, Chapter
I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.
PART 151--LAND ACQUISITIONS (NONGAMING)
1. The authority for part 151 continues to read as follows:
Authority: R.S. 161: 5 U.S.C. 301. Interpret or apply 46 Stat.
1106, as amended; 46 Stat. 1471, as amended; 48 Stat. 985, as
amended; 49 Stat. 1967, as amended, 53 Stat. 1129; 63 Stat. 605; 69
Stat. 392, as amended; 70 Stat. 290, as amended; 70 Stat. 626; 75
Stat. 505; 77 Stat. 349; 78 Stat. 389; 78 Stat. 747; 82 Stat. 174,
as amended, 82 Stat. 884; 84 Stat. 120; 84 Stat. 1874; 86 Stat. 216;
86 Stat. 530; 86 Stat. 744; 88 Stat. 78; 88 Stat. 81; 88 Stat. 1716;
88 Stat. 2203; 88 Stat. 2207; 25 U.S.C. 2, 9, 409a, 450h, 451, 464,
465, 487, 488, 489, 501, 502, 573, 574, 576, 608, 608a, 610, 610a,
622, 624, 640d-10, 1466, 1495, and other authorizing acts.
2. Section 151.12, Action on requests, is amended by designating
the existing text as paragraph (a) and by adding a new paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 151.12 Title examination.
* * * * *
(b) Following completion of the Title Examination provided in
Sec. 151.13 of this part and the exhaustion of any administrative
remedies, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register, or in a
newspaper of general circulation serving the affected area a notice of
his/her decision to take land into trust under this part. The notice
will state that a final agency determination to take land in trust has
been made and that the Secretary shall acquire title in the name of the
United States no sooner than 30 days after the notice is published.
Dated: April 17, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-9922 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9874 Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Service, et. al.; 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Frequency Use
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18092-18098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9874]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 21
[Gen. Dockets Nos. 90-54 and 80-113, MM Docket No. 94-131 and PP Docket
No. 93-253, FCC 96-130]
Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Service, et. al.; 2.1 and 2.5
GHz Frequency Use
Use of the Frequencies in the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Affecting Private
Operational-Fixed Microwave Service, Multipoint Distribution Service,
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, Instructional Television
Fixed Service, and Cable Television Relay Service; Filing Procedures in
the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television
Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act--Competitive Bidding.
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; Third Order on Reconsideration and Order to
Clarify.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Third Order on Reconsideration and Order to Clarify
resolves the issues raised in reconsideration petitions filed against
the Second Order on Reconsideration in Gen. Dockets No. 90-54 and 80-
113. The Second Order on Reconsideration essentially adopted three
changes. First, it enlarged the protected service area for Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS) stations from 710 square-miles (the area of
a circle with a 15-mile radius) to approximately 3,848 square-miles
(the area of a circle with a 35-mile radius). Second, it revised the
rules for serving interference studies upon potentially affected
stations in the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS). Third,
it clarified the use of frequency offset interference protection and
the MDS cut-off rule. In this Third Order on Reconsideration and Order
to Clarify, the Commission also provides clarification of provisions
set forth in the MDS Report and Order in MM Docket No. 94-131 and PP
Docket No. 93-253, including the interference study requirements for
pending ITFS applications and the statement of intention to be filed by
some winning bidders in the MDS auction. This Commission action is
intended to expedite more service to the public and enhance
opportunities for wireless cable to reach its potential as a competitor
to wired cable.
EFFECTIVE DATES: June 24, 1996, except that the new or modified
paperwork requirements contained in Section 21.902(i), which are
subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), will
go into effect upon OMB approval. The Commission will issue at a later
date a public notice with this effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerianne Timmerman at (202) 416-0881
or Sharon Bertelsen at (202) 416-0892.
The complete text of the Third Order on Reconsideration and Order
to Clarify follows. It is also available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the MDS public reference room, Room
207, at the Federal Communications Commission, 2033 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., and it may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 2100 M Street
NW., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037, (202) 857-3800.
I. Introduction and Background
1. The Commission has before it three petitions for reconsideration
of the Second Order on Reconsideration in Gen. Docket Nos. 90-54 and
80-113, 10 FCC Rcd 7074 (1995), 60 FR 36737 (July 18, 1995) (``Second
Order on Reconsideration''), which revised the definition of the
protected service area of Multipoint Distribution Service (``MDS'') \1\
stations. In the Second Order on Reconsideration, the protected service
area for MDS stations was enlarged from 710 square-miles (the area of a
circle with a 15-mile radius) to approximately 3,848 square-miles (the
area of a circle with a 35-mile radius). Also revised were the rules
for serving interference studies upon potentially affected stations in
the Instructional Television Fixed Service (``ITFS''). In addition,
clarification was provided regarding frequency offset interference
protection and the MDS cut-off rule. Three petitions for
reconsideration of various aspects of the Second Order on
Reconsideration were timely filed with the Commission. The
reconsideration petitions include a request for clarification of
certain provisions of the order and a request for reconsideration of a
Commission public notice issued after the order was released, which
cited the order. Two oppositions were received, and no replies were
filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless otherwise indicated, ``MDS'' includes single channel
Multipoint Distribution Service stations and Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution Service stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The petitions for reconsideration principally raise issues
regarding the expanded protected service area for authorized and
previously proposed MDS stations. The major factors that prompted
adoption of the expanded protected service area in the Second Order on
Reconsideration included: (1) the many MDS operators that have been
serving areas larger than the 710 square-mile service area formerly
provided by the MDS rules; (2) the technological innovations in
reception equipment that have contributed to a significant increase in
the geographic area to which reliable MDS service can be provided; and
(3) the potential overcrowding of the MDS spectrum that would result
from continued use of the smaller service area. See Second Order on
Reconsideration at 7077-78. We also noted that the desirability of an
expansion of the protected service area had been enhanced by two
separate rulemakings: a 1995 ITFS rulemaking which established a fixed
35-mile distance as one of several criterion for ITFS receiver site
protection,\2\ and the Report and Order in 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 Act-Competitive Bidding, 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995), 60 FR
36524 (July 17, 1995) (``MDS Report and Order''), recon. granted in
part and denied in part, Memorandum and Order on Reconsideration,
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
[[Page 18093]]
309(j) of the Communications Act-Competitive Bidding, FCC 95-445, MM
Docket No. 94-131 and PP Docket No. 93-253 (released October 27, 1995),
60 FR 57365 (Nov. 15, 1995), in which the Commission established
competitive bidding procedures to select among mutually exclusive MDS
applications. See Second Order on Reconsideration at 7079.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Report and Order, Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's
Rules with Regard to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, 10
FCC Rcd 2907, 2921 (1995), 60 FR 20241 (April 25, 1995) (``ITFS
Filing Procedures Order''). A combination of ITFS and MDS
frequencies are used to provide a video entertainment service
popularly known as ``wireless cable.'' The rules for these two
services were initially developed independently. However, with the
increasing combined use of both service frequencies to provide a
single video service to consumers and to provide a competitor to
wired cable operators, coordination of the rules and policies for
both services has been encouraged. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and Notice of Inquiry, Amendment of Parts 21, 43, 74, 78, and 94 of
the Commission's Rules, Pertaining to Rules Governing Use of the
Frequencies in the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Bands Affecting: Private
Operational-Fixed Microwave Service, Multipoint Distribution
Service, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, Instructional
Television Fixed Service, and Cable Television Relay Service, 5 FCC
Rcd 971 (1990), 55 FR 7344 (March 1, 1990).
\3\ In the Second Order on Reconsideration, we noted that ``[i]n
view of the competitive bidding procedures we are adopting * * *, we
have decided that it is even more important that an MDS station's
protected service area boundary be `easy to use and understand so
that the spectrum use rights of licensees are clear.' '' Second
Order on Reconsideration at 7079 (citing Amendment of Parts 21, 74
and 94 of the Commission Rules and Regulations with regard to the
technical requirements applicable to the Multipoint Distribution
Service, the Instructional Television Fixed Service and the Private
Operational-Fixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 105-106
(1984), 49 FR 25456 (June 21, 1984)). As part of the new licensing
scheme, the Commission developed a plan under which MDS
authorizations would be auctioned for geographic areas called Basic
Trading Areas (BTAs). High bidders in the auction would be entitled
to seek authorizations to construct MDS stations on any usable
channels within their BTAs. Previously proposed and authorized MDS
stations within the BTAs would continue to provide service within
the expanded 35-mile protected service area provided in the Second
Order on Reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In addition to resolving the petitions for reconsideration filed
in response to the Second Order on Reconsideration in this order, we,
on our own motion, provide clarification of certain provisions set
forth in the MDS Report and Order, including the interference study
requirements for pending ITFS applications and the 30-day period for
the filing of either a MDS long-form application or a statement of
intention by winning bidders in the MDS auction. We also provide
guidance in respect to the instances that permit a winning bidder in
the MDS auction to file a statement of intention for an encumbered BTA.
See 47 CFR 21.956(a), Appendix C, MDS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at
9702. We deal first with the petitions for reconsideration filed in
response to the Second Order on Reconsideration.
II. Discussion
4. Effective Date of Second Order on Reconsideration. A petition
for reconsideration was filed by the Law Offices of John D. Pellegrin,
Chartered (``Pellegrin''), on ``behalf of clients,'' in which Pellegrin
seeks clarification of the effective date of the revision of 47 CFR
21.902(d), which expanded the protected service areas for MDS stations,
as provided in the Second Order on Reconsideration. In the Second Order
on Reconsideration, the effective date of the revision of
Sec. 21.902(d) was stated as the ``60th day after publication of a
summary of [the] order in the Federal Register.'' Second Order on
Reconsideration at 7096.4 A summary of the Second Order on
Reconsideration was published at 60 FR 36736 (July 18, 1995). Pursuant
to 47 CFR 1.4 (e) and (j), the 60th day after July 18, 1995 is
September 18, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 47 CFR 1.427(a) provides that ``[a]ny rule issued by the
Commission will be made effective not less than 30 days from the
time it is published in the Federal Register.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Pellegrin concedes that September 18, 1995, is the effective
date for this specific Sec. 21.902(d) revision. However, Pellegrin
claims that, although the effective date of the expanded protected
service area can be discerned from reading the text of the order
itself, clarification is sought in light of the use of dates other than
September 18, 1995, in the MDS Report and Order. We confirm Pellegrin's
understanding that the Second Order on Reconsideration provided that
the effective date of the revision of Sec. 21.902(d), which expanded
protected service areas for MDS stations, was September 18, 1995.
6. Delay of the Effective Date of Second Order on Reconsideration.
Pellegrin also requests that the Commission postpone the effective date
of the revision of Sec. 21.902(d) to a minimum of 120 days after the
July 18, 1995, publication date of the summary of the Second Order on
Reconsideration in the Federal Register. The effective date suggested
by Pellegrin would be November 15, 1995, 36 days after the October 10,
1995, deadline for the filing of applications to participate in the MDS
auction and two days after November 13, 1995, the first day of
competitive bidding in the MDS auction.5 Pellegrin argues that,
due to limited engineering resources, additional time is needed to
prepare modification applications which would be filed with the
Commission prior to September 18, 1995. Pellegrin concludes, without
elaboration, that a later effective date ``will not delay any
prospective MDS auction.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Public Notice, FCC Announces Auction of Multipoint
Distribution Service, Report No. AUC-95-06 (released September 5,
1995), 60 FR 48110 (Sept. 12, 1995) (``MDS Auction Public Notice''),
at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. In selecting an effective date for the revision of
Sec. 21.902(d), the Commission balanced two goals: (1) affording the
expanded protected service area to previously proposed and authorized
stations as soon as possible; and (2) providing additional time to file
modification applications under the former protected service area
rules. The effective date was fully considered in the Second Order on
Reconsideration. We also note that the record strongly supported the
selection of an effective date prior to the first application filing
opportunity provided under the new competitive bidding licensing
procedures. The party who filed the petition for partial
reconsideration that initiated the Second Order on Reconsideration,
argued persuasively that the expanded protected service area should
become effective before the Commission lifted the freeze on the filing
of new applications.6 Pellegrin did not file an opposition or any
type of response to that petition for partial reconsideration.7 In
addition, the majority of the parties filing responses to a 1993 public
notice, in which we announced our then-future intention to lift the
freeze on the filing of new MDS applications,8 also requested that
the effective date of any expanded protected service area be prior to
the Commission's lifting of the freeze on the filing of new
applications.9 Pellegrin also did not file a response to this 1993
Public Notice, although responses were encouraged.10 The
Commission announced on September 5, 1995, that the filing deadline for
short-form applications (FCC Form 175-M) to participate in the MDS
auction would be October 10, 1995.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See December 13, 1991 Petition for Partial Reconsideration
of the Wireless Cable Association International, Inc. (``WCA''). In
its December 13, 1991 petition, WCA argued:
The current [protected service area] is a ticking time-bomb set
to explode in the wireless [cable] industry's future. So far, the
Commission's temporary freeze on new MMDS applications has protected
wireless cable operators from the inadequacy of the [protected
service area] definition. Once that temporary freeze is lifted, the
only protection a wireless cable system operator will have to
protect its subscriber base against harmful interference is the
[protected service area] definition--a definition that is woefully
inadequate.
WCA Petition for Partial Reconsideration at 2-3.
\7\ See Second Order on Reconsideration at 7075 n. 1.
\8\ Public Notice, MDS/MMDS Applications Filing Freeze, Mimeo
No. 34165 (released July 28, 1993) (``1993 Public Notice'').
\9\ See Response of WCA to 1993 Public Notice at 8-15; Response
of the Coalition of Wireless Cable Operations to 1993 Public Notice
at 10. See also Response of United Telephone Mutual Aid Corp., et
al. to 1993 Public Notice at 4. Parties filing comments in response
to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the MDS Report and Order,
which raised the issue of interference protection, also requested an
effective date prior to the lifting of the freeze against the filing
of MDS applications for new stations. See Comments of WCA to NPRM
for MDS Report and Order at 10-25; Reply Comments of CAI Wireless
Systems, Inc. at 2; Reply Comments of Hardin and Associates, Inc. at
2-3; and Reply Comments of Heartland Communications at 2.
\10\ The public was asked to file responses to the MDS issues
raised and the approaches and resolutions suggested in the notice.
1993 Public Notice at 2.
\11\ MDS Auction Public Notice at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18094]]
8. Moreover, we find that the September 18, 1995, effective date of
the expanded protected service area did provide an adequate amount of
time for conditional licensees and licensees to prepare and file
modification applications based on the former 710 square-mile protected
service area. The release date of the Second Order on Reconsideration,
June 21, 1995, provided licensees with nearly three months within which
to file modification applications. In response to Pellegrin's claim
that a ``log jam of orders for consulting services'' will be created
due to the ``short FCC deadline'' and the limited number of qualified
consulting engineers who can prepare the engineering analyses required
for modification applications, WCA asserts that it has ``informally
canvassed consulting engineers and wireless cable operators and has
uncovered no evidence that those who acted promptly in response to the
release of the [order] are encountering the difficulties in securing
consulting services that [Petitioner] predicts.'' 12 Indeed,
Pellegrin's complaint was voiced by no other commenter. Thus, we find
Pellegrin's claims of hardship to be speculative and belied by the
evidence before us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ WCA Opposition to Pellegrin Petition at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. MDS conditional licensees and licensees were in no way
prohibited from filing MDS modification applications after September
18, 1995. No freeze has been imposed upon the filing of MDS
modification applications. A conditional licensee or licensee may file
an application requesting the same type station design, location or
status modifications that were permissible prior to the September 18,
1995, effective date of the Sec. 21.902(d) revision provided in the
Second Order on Reconsideration. We, therefore, reject Pellegrin's
argument that the effective date may not have provided licensees an
adequate amount of time to prepare modification applications. Pellegrin
has failed to persuade us to reverse our earlier determination and
further delay implementation of this new interference protection
standard.
10. We also reject Pellegrin's arguments that postponing the
effective date would not have delayed the MDS auction. Although
delaying the effective date of the revision of Sec. 21.902(d) to expand
the MDS protected service area would not have made it technically
impossible to begin the MDS auction on November 13, 1995, it would have
made it commercially impracticable. We do not agree with Pellegrin's
characterization that the Commission adopted a ``caveat emptor'' policy
for the MDS auction. The record reflects that the Commission advised
potential bidders in the MDS auction that they were responsible for
investigating the status of markets due to the heavily encumbered
nature of the service. Over the past several months, we have repeatedly
encouraged interested bidders to thoroughly review all Commission
orders, public notices, MDS file information and other documentation
prior to making a final determination to bid on authorizations for
BTAs.13 Because high bidders in the auction must choose
transmitter sites and design stations so as to protect each point
within the protected service area of all previously proposed and
authorized stations from harmful interference, it is important that the
Sec. 21.902(d) revision which expanded the MDS protected service area
become effective on a date well before the first day of bidding.
Delaying the effective date of the expanded service area to a date
beyond the first day of bidding in the MDS auction would cut against
the goal of market certainty and would be incongruent with the auction
licensing scheme. Accordingly, and for all the reasons discussed, we
deny Pellegrin's request for a delay of the effective date of the
revision of Sec. 21.902(d) to expand the protected service area for MDS
stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., MDS Report and Order at 9604; MDS Auction Public
Notice at 4; MDS Bidder Information Package at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Filing of Applications for New ITFS Stations. On August 3,
1995, the Commission announced by public notice that the Mass Media
Bureau would accept ITFS applications for major modifications for a
limited period of time from August 3, 1995, through September 15,
1995.14 In a separate petition for reconsideration, Pellegrin
requests that for applicants who would file pursuant to 47 CFR
Sec. 74.990(a), the Commission permit the filing of applications for
new ITFS stations during this filing window for modification
applications by defining the term ``major change'' to include new
applications filed pursuant to Sec. 74.990(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Public Notice, Notice of Limited Period to File
Instructional Television Fixed Service Applications for Major
Changes in Existing Facilities, Report No. 23564A (released August
3, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. It appears, however, that Pellegrin's request for an
opportunity to file applications for new ITFS stations was addressed
and resolved by the public notice released the day after the August 3,
1995, public notice was issued. On August 4, 1995, the Commission
announced by public notice that the Mass Media Bureau would open a
window from October 16, 1995, through October 20, 1995, for the filing
of applications for new ITFS stations.15 All those eligible to
file applications for new ITFS stations, including those filing
pursuant to 47 CFR 74.990(a), were permitted to file during that time.
Therefore, Pellegrin's concern about having a filing opportunity before
the issuance of the first BTA authorization has been addressed. We,
therefore, dismiss as moot Pellegrin's reconsideration petition on this
issue as the relief sought was previously granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Public Notice, Notice of Instructional Television Fixed
Service Filing Window From October 16, 1995 Through October 20,
1995, Report No. 23565A (released August 4, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Strict application of requirements for ITFS requests for
extension of time to construct. The Commission announced in the Second
Order on Reconsideration that it would strictly scrutinize requests for
extensions of time to construct ITFS and MDS stations in order to
address concerns over the ``economic blackmail'' 16 that allegedly
occurs when construction permittees and conditional licensees
repeatedly delay station construction over substantial periods of time,
while demanding protection from potential harmful electromagnetic
interference caused by subsequently proposed neighboring licensees.
Second Order on Reconsideration at 7081. The Law Firm of Schwartz,
Woods & Miller (``Schwartz, Woods''), on behalf of its ITFS clients,
requests reconsideration of this policy as it applies to ITFS extension
applicants, suggesting that the Commission has not set out a public
interest reason sufficient to justify the new strict review
policy.17 Schwartz, Woods argues that the Commission has
recognized that, due to the nature of educational institutions, it
generally takes ITFS construction permittees longer than it would
commercial entities to raise funds for construction, thereby causing a
delay in completion of construction.18 ITFS construction
[[Page 18095]]
permittees rely heavily upon MDS operators for construction financing,
Schwartz, Woods argues, and MDS operators frequently delay ITFS
construction financing until their own MDS systems generate profit.
Therefore, Schwartz, Woods asserts, ITFS construction extension
applications should be routinely granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In response to the 1993 Public Notice, WCA commented: [A]
few * * * entities are abusing the ITFS interference protection
rules * * * and proposing stations that appear to have no other
purpose than to frustrate the ability of wireless cable systems in
adjacent communities to add ITFS stations to their systems. Clearly,
the word is out that the interference protection rules permit
economic blackmail.* * * [T]he legitimate wireless cable operator
will have to reach an accommodation if it is to continue providing a
viable service to the public.
Comments of WCA to the 1993 Public Notice at 9.
\17\ Schwartz, Woods filed the petition on behalf of 26
educational institutions, many of which hold multiple ITFS station
licenses.
\18\ See Schwartz, Woods Petition at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Section 73.3534(c) of the Commission's rules provides that:
Applications for extension of time to construct * * *
Instructional TV Fixed stations will be granted upon a specific and
detailed showing that the failure to complete was due to causes not
under the control of the permittee, or upon a specific and detailed
showing * * * sufficient to justify an extension.
47 CFR 73.3534 (1994). As recently as February 1995, in an ITFS
rulemaking order, we explained with greater particularity the type of
showing an educator must make to obtain an extension of time within
which to construct, including showings that: ``(1) construction is
complete and testing of facilities has begun; (2) substantial progress
has been made; or (3) reasons clearly beyond the applicant's control,
which applicant has taken all possible steps to resolve, have prevented
construction.'' ITFS Filing Procedures Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 2921. In
denying a request to shorten the 18-month ITFS station construction
period to 12 months in order to prevent speculative filings, we
responded that application of our existing rules have ``operated
sufficiently to prevent abuses by frequency speculators.'' Id. Our
statement in the Second Order on Reconsideration that we intend to
strictly apply the ITFS extension requirements merely underscores our
previous statements.
15. It has long been Commission practice to consider a request for
extension of time within which to construct ITFS stations ``on its
merits.'' Applications of Public Broadcasting Service, 96 FCC 2d 555,
558 (1983). In keeping with the priorities of maximum utilization of
ITFS frequencies and expeditious licensing of ITFS stations, Amendment
of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to the
Instructional Television Fixed Service, 98 FCC 2d 925, 935 (1984), 49
FR 32590 (Aug. 15, 1984), we will continue to process or grant ITFS
extension requests that meet the requirements of Sec. 73.3534. When we
stated that the requirements for ITFS extensions of time to construct
would be strictly applied, we did not change our rules to heighten the
requirements for extension requests. The Commission will continue to
apply our extension rules fairly, including denying and dismissing
those applications that do not demonstrate compliance with our rules.
16. Schwartz, Woods argues that the Report and Order, Amendment of
Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in
regard to frequency allocation to the Instructional Television Fixed
Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service and the Private
Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203 (1983), 48 FR 33873
(July 26, 1983) (``MMDS Allocation Order'') recognizes the Commission's
responsibility to take into consideration funding complexities when
reviewing extension requests. However, the Commission was actually
discussing the rationale for creating a spectrum reserve for ITFS and
was not discussing the reasons ITFS construction extension requests
should be granted. MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1224-25.
Nevertheless, we agree that public funding complexities are the type of
circumstances, when proven by a specific and detailed showing as
required by Sec. 73.3534, that are likely to be sufficient to support
grant of an extension request. Indeed, a public educational institution
which is denied funding by a state legislature should provide a
detailed and specific showing of the circumstances and a showing that
the lack of funding is beyond its control (e.g., that it submitted a
budget request). In the alternative, an educator can submit a showing
that it attempted to solicit funding from other sources by providing
copies of grant proposals.
17. Schwartz, Woods argues that the greatest difficulty in meeting
ITFS construction requirements results from financing arrangements with
MDS operators. However, MDS operators are accustomed to construction
requirements and extension request standards that are more stringent
than the ITFS requirements.\19\ Therefore, MDS operators should be
cooperative in ensuring that ITFS permittees meet construction
deadlines, especially if the MDS operator's lease arrangement will be
impacted by denial of an ITFS extension request, which subsequently
results in a cancellation of the ITFS authorization for failure to
construct. As we stated in the ITFS Filing Procedures Order, 10 FCC Rcd
at 2907, it is our intention to continue to follow our existing
processing standards and methods, which complement our new wireless
cable licensing scheme and related new procedures. We intend to grant
ITFS requests for extension of time within which to construct ITFS
stations that meet the stated standards, and deny those that do not.
We, therefore, deny Schwartz, Woods' request to exempt ITFS stations
from our policy of stricter application of the requirements for
extension requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The MDS station construction period is 12 months. 47 CFR
21.43(a)(2). Lack of financing is specifically listed in the MDS
rules as an unacceptable basis for a grant of a extension request.
47 CFR 21.40(b). In addition to other showings, MDS licensees must,
with every extension request, submit a verified statement outlining
the actions taken to construct the facility. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Other Issues and Clarification of the MDS Report and Order.
Finally, on our own motion, we amend our rules to require service of
new MDS station applications (long-form applications) filed by BTA and
Partitioned Service Area authorization holders, as well as modification
applications filed by incumbent MDS licensees, upon ITFS applicants
with applications pending. In the Second Order on Reconsideration, we
changed the date on which MDS long-form applications must be served
upon ITFS licensees and construction permittees to on or before the
date an application is filed. Second Order on Reconsideration at 7089-
90. In the MDS Report and Order, we adopted a rule that prohibits BTA
and Partitioned Service Area authorization holders from proposing and
operating stations that would cause harmful electromagnetic
interference to ITFS station sites (and these stations' protected
service areas) proposed in pending ITFS applications. See 47 CFR
21.938(b)(3), Appendix C, MDS Report and Order at 9696. We did not in
either order, however, require that MDS applicants prepare studies of
the potential interference to facilities previously proposed in ITFS
applications, or serve ITFS applicants with a copy of the long-form
applications and interference studies. We take this opportunity to
amend Sec. 21.902 to require such service and to require the
preparation of studies of the potential interference to the facilities
proposed in pending ITFS applications by BTA and Partitioned Service
Area authorization holders filing long-form applications and by
incumbent MDS applicants filing modification applications. We believe
that this ITFS service requirement will further our goal of providing
notice to all parties potentially affected by new or modified MDS
facilities. See MDS Report and Order at 9624 (MDS applicants required
to prepare interference analyses and serve them on ``potentially
affected parties'').
19. Also on our own motion, we correct 47 CFR 21.956(a) to clarify
that the period within which a winning bidder in the MDS auction must
file
[[Page 18096]]
either an initial long-form application or a statement of intention
after being notified of its status as a winning bidder is 30 business
days. Section 21.956(a) provides that the period is ``30 days'' from
the time a bidder is notified of its status as a high bidder, 47 CFR
21.956(a), Appendix C, MDS Report and Order at 9702, whereas the text
of the MDS Report and Order provides that the period is ``thirty
business days.'' MDS Report and Order at 9655-56. Through this
amendment, we clarify that only business days will count toward the
completion of this 30-day filing period.
20. We next provide guidance regarding the filing of a ``statement
of intention.'' In particular, we want to give examples of situations
in which the Commission will consider a BTA so heavily encumbered that
the winning bidder for that BTA would not be required to file a long-
form application for a new MDS station within the prescribed 30
business day period, but rather would be permitted to file a statement
of intention, describing the encumbrances and the plan to make possible
the filing of a long-form application. See 47 CFR 21.956(a) in Appendix
C, MDS Report and Order at 9702. In the MDS Report and Order, we noted
that:
[A] number of BTA service areas may be so encumbered that the
winning bidder for such a BTA may be unable to file a long-form
application proposing another MDS station within the BTA while
meeting the Commission's interference standards as to all previously
authorized or proposed MDS and ITFS facilities * * *. The winning
bidder for a BTA service area so heavily encumbered that it believes
it cannot file an acceptable long-form application proposing an MDS
station with average transmitted power within its BTA * * *. Must
file with the Commission, in lieu of a long-form application for an
MDS station license, a statement of intention with regard to the BTA
service area, showing the encumbered nature of the BTA, identifying
the incumbents, and describing in detail its plan for obtaining the
previously authorized or proposed MDS stations within the BTA.
MDS Report and Order at 9656-57. The degree to which encumbrances
preclude new MDS stations in a BTA varies widely and depends on factors
such as the size and shape of the BTA, proximity of accessible
transmitting antenna sites to unserved communities in the BTA, and
proximity to neighboring MDS and ITFS facilities in adjacent BTAs,
which also must be protected. Additionally, terrain conditions are an
important factor, as are the relative locations of multiple protected
areas slicing through a BTA, perhaps preventing the use of antenna
cross polarization as an interference abatement technique. Thus, we
cannot, nor do we wish, to prescribe rigid technical criteria from
which we would accept or reject statements of intention. Rather, each
statement of intention will reflect the unique geographic and
demographic conditions in that BTA, and the existing and proposed use
of MDS and ITFS channels in that region. We will examine statements of
intention on a case-by-case basis, working with auction winners to
obtain any needed clarification or supporting documentation.
21. We believe it would be helpful for the Commission to offer
examples of what we would normally consider to be heavily encumbered
situations for which we would likely approve statements of intention.
BTA auction winners for whom these situations apply need only document
their applicability. This approach will simplify the showing in
statements of intention, easing the burden on applicants and the
Commission's MDS processing staff. We offer as an example of an
encumbered BTA for which a statement of intention could be filed one
that is entirely covered by the 56.33 kilometer (35 mile) service area
of a previously authorized or proposed (``protected'') cochannel or
adjacent channel incumbent MDS or ITFS facility, which will preclude
the use of at least one of the 13 MDS channels. We will also consider a
BTA to be heavily encumbered where all communities in the BTA are
located: (1) Within 64.4 kilometers (40 miles) of the 56.33 kilometer
(35 mile) service area of a protected MDS or ITFS facility or within
64.4 kilometers of the boundary of an adjacent BTA not held by the same
BTA winner, or (2) within 24.4 kilometers (15 miles) of the 56.33
kilometer (35 mile) service area of a protected station operating on an
adjacent D- or G-group channel; provided further, that there are no
intervening terrain barriers that would completely shield such
protected service areas or adjacent BTAs. A BTA winner may file a
statement of intention if the use of at least one MDS channel is
precluded by such encumbrances throughout that BTA. We note that the
64.4 kilometer distance is merely a guideline, and, as such, does not
necessarily preclude the filing of statements of intention where the
service areas of protected stations are further away from a BTA. We
chose this distance because it is the distance to the otherwise
unobstructed horizon for a transmitting antenna height of 159 meters
(522 feet), an ample antenna height for serving most communities.\20\
The 24.4 kilometer (15 mile) distance guideline for adjacent channels
assumes line-of-sight transmissions within a protected 56.33 kilometer
(35 mile) service area, copolarized antennas, and a desired-to-
undesired signal strength ratio of 0 dB. These conditions would be met,
for example, from an MDS station radiating 350 watts toward the
protected service area and protecting a weak desired signal level of
-108 dBw. Obviously, as the distance from the protected area increases
beyond 24.4 kilometers, there is greater flexibility to operate an MDS
facility without causing adjacent channel interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Site location and antenna height are the major MDS station
design factors that determine the line-of-sight distance to the
horizon, beyond which the potential for interference is greatly
reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Our distance guidelines notwithstanding, there may be
situations where communities in a BTA are located more than 64.4
kilometers from protected service areas, but cannot be adequately
served without possibly interfering with other MDS or ITFS
operations.\21\ BTA auction winners may use any means to show the
preclusive effects of encumbrances in such cases. A statement of
intention may be supported by showing that any one of the MDS channels
could not be used by a new station to serve a community in that BTA.
The BTA auction winner's analysis may include desired-to-undesired
signal strength calculations, using the authorized or previously
proposed facilities of protected stations. A BTA winner may assume that
any hypothetical station it would operate would require sufficient
power and antenna height to not only serve a community, but also
support an economically feasible operation. A BTA winner who is also an
incumbent MDS operator in the same BTA may use the authorized
parameters of the incumbent system to show that it could not add an
additional channel to that system.\22\ In addition to interference-
related encumbrances, BTA winners (particularly for the smaller BTAs)
might be able to show that no reasonable facility could be operated in
conformance with the limiting signal strengths at the BTA boundaries.
See 47 CFR 21.938, Appendix C, MDS Report and Order at 9696.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ A community in an area characterized by large heights above
average terrain may be an example of such a situation.
\22\ We note that any such additional channel would be
encompassed by the BTA authorization, and the protected service area
for that channel would extend to the borders of the BTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. There may be situations where there are one or more communities
within a BTA for which an MDS station
[[Page 18097]]
could be constructed and operated on all MDS channels in full
compliance with the Commission's MDS interference rules (excluding
channel 2 outside of the cities where its use is permitted, see 47 CFR
21.901), but that the winning bidder is unable to provide service for
other reasons.\23\ In such cases, the winning bidder's statement of
intention should detail those reasons, together with factual
documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For example, any such MDS facility complying with our
interference rules would be too small to serve the community
effectively, or the community or other populated area might be too
small to support an economically viable wireless cable system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. With regard to the showings in support of statements of
intention, we would like to clarify that, at a minimum, specific and
detailed narrative descriptions are required and must include the
information and supporting documentation outlined in the MDS Report and
Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9657, including identification of encumbering
stations or applications for all MDS channels (even though the
statement of intention may be filed if only one channel is encumbered).
Statements of intention that detail a winning bidder's objective to
purchase previously authorized or proposed stations and/or ITFS leases
within a BTA should include such information as the estimated date for
conclusion of negotiations and consummation of sales, and should
identify the parties with whom the winning bidders are engaged in
negotiations. We encourage BTA auction winners to file maps, charts,
diagrams, sketches, technical analyses or any other documents that,
together with the narrative descriptions, would best explain the status
of a BTA and the BTA winner's plan for initiating service in the BTA.
25. We emphasize that we do not want statements of intention to
become a regulatory burden for BTA auction winners or the Commission's
MDS processing staff. We will make every effort to issue BTA
authorizations on the basis of factually supported statements of
intention, and, as deemed necessary, we may request additional
information from a BTA winner, such as a map of the BTA showing the
protected circles of encumbering MDS and/or ITFS facilities. We note
that the five-year build-out period for the BTA begins with the
granting of the BTA authorization, whether such authorization is
granted on the basis of a long-form application or a statement of
intention. See MDS Report and Order at 9613; 47 CFR 21.930, Appendix C,
MDS Report and Order at 9692. We believe that the running of the five-
year build-out period from the date of the BTA authorization grant will
encourage auction winners who obtain BTA authorizations by initially
filing statements of intention to resolve encumbrances, file long-form
application(s), and initiate service in their BTAs in a timely fashion.
III. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
26. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No.
96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq. (1981)), the
Commission's final analysis is as follows:
27. Need and purpose of this action: This third reconsideration
order upholds the Commission's decision to make effective on September
18, 1995, revisions of the rule governing the Multipoint Distribution
Service, in order to expand the area within which MDS stations will be
protected from harmful electromagnetic interference, and to increase
the efficiency of processing MDS applications. This action also
maintains the Commission policy of strict application of the
requirements for requests for extensions of time within which to
construct ITFS stations. In adopting this order, the Commission's goals
of promoting efficiency in the allocation, licensing and shared use of
the electromagnetic spectrum are furthered.
28. Summary of the issues raised by the public comments in response
to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: There were no comments
submitted in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
and none in connection with this third reconsideration order.
29. Significant alternatives considered: The Commission considered
all the alternatives raised by petitioners and discussed herein. In
response to these petitions, we decided to maintain the September 18,
1995, effective date of the expanded protected service areas provided
to MDS stations in order to enhance the potential for effective
competition with traditional wireline cable systems. On
reconsideration, it was also requested that we reverse our policy of
strict application of the requirements for requests for extensions of
time within which to construct ITFS stations. We decided to maintain
our strict application policy.
30. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Third Order on
Reconsideration, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration,
in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
IV. Ordering Clauses
31. In view of all the foregoing, we affirm our adoption of the
Second Order on Reconsideration. Reconsideration of the order is not
justified. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to the authority
contained in Secs. 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i) and 303(r), and Sec. 1.429(i) of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429(i), and for the reasons set forth
above, petitioners' requests for reconsideration are hereby denied in
part, and dismissed as moot in part, as discussed herein. Clarification
of the Second Order on Reconsideration, where requested, has been
provided.
32. It is further ordered that Sections 21.902(i) and 21.956(a) of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 21.902(i) and 21.956(a), are amended, as
discussed herein and as provided below.
33. It is further ordered that the rule amendments set forth below
will become effective June 24, 1996, except that the new or modified
paperwork requirements contained in Section 21.902(i), 47 CFR
Sec. 21.902(i), which are subject to approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB''), will go into effect upon OMB approval.
The Commission will issue at a later date a public notice with this
effective date.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 21
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 21 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 21--DOMESTIC PUBLIC FIXED RADIO SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1, 2, 4, 201-205, 208, 215, 218, 303, 307, 313,
314, 403, 404, 410, 602; 48 Stat. 1064, 1066, 1070-1073, 1076, 1077,
1080, 1082, 1083, 1087, 1094, 1098, 1102, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151,
154, 201-205, 208, 215, 218, 303, 307, 313, 314, 403, 602; 47 U.S.C.
552, 554.
2. Section 21.902 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(2) to read as follows:
[[Page 18098]]
Sec. 21.902 Frequency interference.
* * * * *
(i) (1) For each application for a new station, or amendment
thereto, or modification application, or amendment thereto, proposing
Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) facilities on the E, F, or H
channels, filed on October 1, 1995, or thereafter, on or before the day
the application or amendment is filed, the applicant must prepare, but
is not required to submit with its application or amendment, an
analysis demonstrating that operation of the MDS applicant's
transmitter will not cause harmful electrical interference to each
registered receive site of any existing D, E, F, or G channel
Instructional Television Fixed Service station licensed, with a
construct permit, or proposed in a pending application on the day such
MDS application is filed, with an ITFS transmitter site within 50 miles
of the coordinates of the MDS station's proposed transmitter site.
* * * * *
(2) For each application described in paragraph (i)(1) of this
section, the applicant must serve, by certified mail, return receipt
requested, on or before the day the application or amendment described
in paragraph (i)(1) of this section is initially filed with the
Commission, a copy of the complete MDS application or amendment,
including each exhibit and interference study, described in paragraph
(i)(1) of this section, on each ITFS licensee, construction permittee,
or applicant described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
3. Section 21.956 is amended by revising the introductory portion
of paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 21.956 Filing of long-form applications or statements of
intention.
(a)(1) Within 30 business days of being notified of its status as a
winning bidder, each winning bidder for a BTA service area will be
required to submit either:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-9874 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9806 Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Standard Models 14RF-9, 14RF- 19, 14RF-21; and 14SF-5, 14SF-7, 14SF-11, 14SFL11, 14SF-15, 14SF-17, 14SF-19, and 14SF-23; and Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace 6/5500/F Propellers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18052-18058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9806]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-ANE-05; Amendment 39-9568; AD 96-08-02]
Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Standard Models 14RF-9, 14RF-
19, 14RF-21; and 14SF-5, 14SF-7, 14SF-11, 14SFL11, 14SF-15, 14SF-17,
14SF-19, and 14SF-23; and Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace 6/5500/F
Propellers
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to Hamilton Standard Models 14RF-9, 14RF-19, 14RF-21;
and 14SF-5, 14SF-7, 14SF-11, 14SFL11, 14SF-15, 14SF-17, 14SF-19, and
14SF-23; and Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace 6/5500/F propellers,
that currently requires that all blades of applicable Hamilton Standard
propellers be calibrated for ultrasonic transmissibility before
conducting the ultrasonic shear wave inspection. In addition, that AD
decreases the repetitive inspection interval for the Hamilton Standard
Models 14RF-9, 14SF-5, -7, -11, -15, -17, -19, and -23 propellers from
1,250 flight cycles to 500 flight cycles. That AD also establishes a
new ultrasonic shear wave inspection interval of 1,000 flight cycles
for the Hamilton Standard Model 14RF-19, and 2,500 flight cycles for
the Hamilton Standard Model 14RF-21 and Hamilton Standard/British
Aerospace Model 6/5500/F. Also, that AD removes Hamilton Standard Model
14SFL11 propellers from service. This amendment requires a blade repair
that constitutes terminating action to the repetitive ultrasonic taper
bore inspections. Repetitive ultrasonic taper bore inspections are
required until the blade is repaired in accordance with this AD. This
amendment is prompted by the development of a taper bore repair process
that removes the damaged material and returns the blade to a condition
that does not require repetitive ultrasonic taper bore inspections. The
actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent separation of a
propeller blade due to cracks initiating in the blade taper bore, that
can result in aircraft damage, and possible loss of aircraft control.
DATES: Effective May 9, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of Hamilton Standard Alert Service
Bulletins (ASB's): No. 14RF-9-61-A91, No. 14RF-19-61-A55, No. 14RF-21-
61-A73, No. 14SF-61-A93, and No. 6/5500/F-61-A41, all dated December 7,
1995, and Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A91, Revision 1, No.
14RF-19-61-A55, Revision 1, No. 14RF-21-61-A73, and Revision 1, No.
14SF-61-A93, all dated December 15, 1995, and No. 6/5500/F-61-A41,
Revision 1, dated December 18, 1995; and Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-9-61-A95, No. 14RF-19-61-A57, No. 14RF-21-61-A75, No. 14SF-61-A95,
and No. 6/5500/F-61-A43, all dated December 18, 1995, and Hamilton
Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A95, Revision 1, No. 14RF-19-61-A57,
Revision 1, No. 14RF-21-61-A75, Revision 1, No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision
1, and No. 6/5500/F-61-A43, Revision 1, all dated December 21, 1995,
was previously approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
January 9, 1996 (61 FR 617).
The incorporation by reference of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-
9-61-A94, Revision 1, dated March 6, 1996; No. 14RF-19-61-A53, Revision
1, dated March 6, 1996; No. 14RF-21-61-A72, Revision 1, dated March 6,
1996; No. 14SF-61-A92, Revision 1, dated March 6, 1996; and No. 6/5500/
F-61-A39, Revision 1, dated March 6, 1996; is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of May 9, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before June 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-ANE-05, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may also be
submitted to the following Internet address: ``epd-
[email protected]''.
[[Page 18053]]
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from
Hamilton Standard, One Hamilton Road, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010;
telephone (203) 654-6876. This information may be examined at the FAA,
New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Burlington,
MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
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) 238-7152, fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 26, 1995, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) issued airworthiness directive (AD) 96-01-01,
Amendment 39-9477 (61 FR 617, January 9, 1996), applicable to Hamilton
Standard Models 14RF-9, -19, -21; and 14SF-5, -7, -11, -15, -17, -19,
and -23; and Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace 6/5500/F propellers,
to require all blades of applicable Hamilton Standard propellers be
calibrated for ultrasonic transmissibility before conducting the
ultrasonic shear wave inspection. In addition, that AD decreases the
repetitive inspection interval for the Hamilton Standard Models 14RF-9,
14SF-5, -7, -11, -15, -17, -19, and -23 propellers from 1,250 flight
cycles to 500 flight cycles. That AD also establishes a new ultrasonic
shear wave inspection interval of 1,000 flight cycles for the Hamilton
Standard Model 14RF-19, and 2,500 flight cycles for the Hamilton
Standard Model 14RF-21 and Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace Model 6/
5500/F. Also, that AD removes Hamilton Standard Model 14SFL11
propellers from service. That action was prompted by improvements in
the crack detection capability of the ultrasonic inspection method as
well as redefinition of crack growth rate. That condition, if not
corrected, could result in separation of a propeller blade due to
cracks initiating in the blade taper bore, that can result in aircraft
damage, and possible loss of aircraft control.
Since the issuance of that AD, the manufacturer has developed a new
taper bore repair process that consists of reaming damaged material out
of the taper bore, eddy current inspection (ECI) and fluorescent
penetrant inspection (FPI) of the taper bore, followed by a wall
thickness check and shotpeening. The FAA has evaluated the structural
adequacy of the repair action and has determined that design structural
integrity is maintained. In addition, the FAA has revised the cyclic
count determination procedure for Canadair CL215T and CL415 water
bomber aircraft. The FAA has determined that the water scoop mission
profile creates less stress than a touch-and-go or normal takeoff and
landing, and has therefore revised this AD to include the new cyclic
count definition of one-half flight cycle per each water scoop.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of the
following Hamilton Standard Alert Service Bulletins (ASB's): No. 14RF-
9-61-A91, No. 14RF-19-61-A55, No. 14RF-21-61-A73, No. 14SF-61-A93, and
No. 6/5500/F-61-A41, all dated December 7, 1995, and No. 14RF-9-61-A91,
Revision 1, No. 14RF-19-61-A55, Revision 1, No. 14RF-21-61-A73,
Revision 1, No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1, all dated December 15, 1995,
and No. 6/5500/F-61-A41, Revision 1, dated December 18, 1995, that
describe procedures for ultrasonic shear wave inspections of the blade
taper bores for cracks after the lead wool has been removed. The
Revision 1 ASB's permit the installation of a plastic cone in the taper
bore that will enhance resistance to corrosion and mechanical damage.
Inspection procedures are the same.
In addition, the FAA has reviewed and approved the technical
contents of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A95, No. 14RF-19-61-
A57, No. 14RF-21-61-A75, No. 14SF-61-A95, and No. 6/5500/F-61-A43, all
dated December 18, 1995, and No. 14RF-9-61-A95, Revision 1, No. 14RF-
19-61-A57, Revision 1, No. 14RF-21-61-A75, Revision 1, No. 14SF-61-A95,
Revision 1, and No. 6/5500/F-61-A43, Revision 1, all dated December 21,
1995, that describe ultrasonic shear wave inspection that can be
accomplished without removing the lead from the taper bore which
permits an on-wing inspection of the blade taper bores for cracks. The
Revision 1 ASB's do not require immediate removal of the blades that
cannot be inspected for cracks due to the lead wool absorbing the
ultrasonic signal. These blades may be removed at any time within the
applicable compliance period. Inspection procedures are the same.
Also, the FAA has reviewed and approved technical contents of
Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A94, Revision 1, dated March 6,
1996; No. 14RF-19-61-A53, Revision 1, dated March 6, 1996; No. 14RF-21-
61-A72, Revision 1, dated March 6, 1996; No. 14SF-61-A92, Revision 1,
dated March 6, 1996; and No. 6/5500/F-61-A39, Revision 1, dated March
6, 1996; that describe procedures for the new taper bore repair
process.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other propellers of this same type design, this AD
supersedes AD 96-01-01 to require an ultrasonic shear wave inspection
of the propeller blade taper bore for cracks. Propeller blades with
ultrasonic shear wave readings that exceed the acceptable limits
described in the applicable ASB's must be removed from service and
replaced with serviceable propeller blades prior to further flight. In
addition, this AD requires the new taper bore repair for all Model
14RF-9 propellers no later than July 31, 1996, and for all other
affected propeller models February 28, 1997. Propeller blades that
cannot be repaired within the repair limits specified in the applicable
Hamilton Standard ASB's must be removed from service and replaced with
serviceable propeller blades prior to further flight. The calendar end-
date was determined based upon fracture mechanics and engineering
analysis, as well as logistics considerations, that support the
specified calendar end-date. This taper bore repair constitutes
terminating action to the repetitive ultrasonic taper bore inspections
required by this AD. The actions are required to be accomplished in
accordance with the service documents described previously.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether
[[Page 18054]]
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 notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-ANE-05.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this
action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined
that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will
be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may
be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-9477, (61 FR
617, January 9, 1996), and by adding a new airworthiness directive,
Amendment 39-9568, to read as follows:
96-08-02 Hamilton Standard: Amendment 39-9568. Docket 96-ANE-05.
Supersedes AD 96-01-01, Amendment 39-9477.
Applicability: Hamilton Standard Models 14RF-9, 14RF-19, 14RF-
21; and 14SF-5, 14SF-7, 14SF-11, 14SFL11, 14SF-15, 14SF-17, 14SF-19,
and 14SF-23; and Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace 6/5500/F
propellers installed on but not limited to Embraer EMB-120, EMB-
120RT; Aerospatiale ATR42-100, ATR42-300, ATR42-320, ATR72, ATR72-
210; deHavilland DHC-8-100 series, DHC-8-200 series, DHC-8-300
series; SAAB-SCANIA SF 340B; Canadair CL-215T, CL-415;
Construcciones Aeronauticas SA (CASA) CN-235 series; and British
Aerospace ATP aircraft.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each
propeller identified in the preceding applicability provision,
regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in
the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For propellers that
have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of
the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use
the authority provided in paragraph (u) to request approval from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This approval may address
either no action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any propeller from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent separation of a propeller blade due to cracks
initiating in the blade taper bore, that can result in aircraft
damage, and possible loss of aircraft control, accomplish the
following:
(a) For Hamilton Standard Model 14RF-9 propeller blades, with
Serial Numbers less than 882038 and listed in Hamilton Standard
Alert Service Bulletins (ASB's) No. 14RF-9-61-A95, dated December
18, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995,
installed on but not limited to Embraer EMB-120 and EMB-120RT series
aircraft, accomplish the following:
(1) Within the next 150 flight cycles, after the effective date
of this AD, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection for cracks
in the blade taper bore in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A95, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995.
(2) For propeller blades that have been previously inspected in
accordance with Hamilton Standards ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A91, dated
December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A91, Revision 1, dated December
15, 1995, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-9-61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A95,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, within 500 flight cycles since
last inspection or 150 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
(3) Propeller blades that cannot be inspected for cracks in
accordance with Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A95, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995, due to the lead wool absorbing the ultrasonic signal, must
be inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A91, dated December 7, 1995,
or No. 14RF-9-61-A91, Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, within
the next 150 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(4) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-9-61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A95,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, must be inspected in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-9-61-A91 dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A91, Revision
1 dated December 15, 1995.
(5) Thereafter, perform repetitive ultrasonic shear wave
inspections at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles in
accordance with the applicable ASB's.
(6) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-9-61-A91, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A91,
Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, must be removed from service
and replaced with a serviceable part prior to further flight.
(b) For Hamilton Standard Models 14SF-5, -7, -11, -15, and -23
propeller blades with Serial Numbers less than 882038 and listed in
Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or
No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, installed on
but not limited to Aerospatiale ATR42-100, ATR42-300, ATR42-320,
ATR72 and deHavilland DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, DHC-8-300 series
aircraft, accomplish the following:
(1) Within the next 150 flight cycles, after the effective date
of this AD, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection for cracks
in the blade taper bore in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A95, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995.
[[Page 18055]]
(2) For propeller blades that have been previously inspected in
accordance with Hamilton Standards ASB's No. 14SF-61-A93, dated
December 7, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1, dated December 15,
1995, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-
61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1,
dated December 21, 1995, within 500 flight cycles since last
inspection or 150 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
(3) Propeller blades that cannot be inspected for cracks in
accordance with Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A95, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995, due to the lead wool absorbing the ultrasonic signal, must
be inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A93, dated December 7, 1995, or
No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, within the
next 150 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(4) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14SF-61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision
1, dated December 21, 1995, must be inspected in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-
A93, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1, dated
December 15, 1995.
(5) Thereafter, perform repetitive ultrasonic shear wave
inspections at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles in
accordance with the applicable ASB's.
(6) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14SF-61-A93, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1,
dated December 15, 1995, must be removed from service and replaced
with a serviceable part prior to further flight.
(c) For Hamilton Standard Model 14RF-9 propeller blades with
Serial Numbers less than 882038 and not listed in Hamilton Standard
ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-
A95, Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, installed on but not
limited to Embraer EMB 120 and EMB 120RT series aircraft, accomplish
the following:
(1) Within the next 300 flight cycles, after the effective date
of this AD, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection for cracks
in the blade taper bore in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A95, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995.
(2) For propeller blades that have been previously inspected in
accordance with Hamilton Standards ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A91, dated
December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A91, Revision 1, dated December
15, 1995, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-9-61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A95,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, within 500 flight cycles since
last inspection or 300 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
(3) Propeller blades that cannot be inspected for cracks in
accordance with Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A95, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995, due to the lead wool absorbing the ultrasonic signal, must
be inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A91, dated December 7, 1995,
or No. 14RF-9-61-A91, Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, within
the next 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.-
(4) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-9-61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A95,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, must be inspected in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-9-61-A91, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A91,
Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995.
(5) Thereafter, perform repetitive ultrasonic shear wave
inspections at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles in
accordance with the applicable ASB's.
(6) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-9-61-A91, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-9-61-A91,
Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, must be removed from service
and replaced with a serviceable part prior to further flight.
(d) For Hamilton Standard Models 14SF-5, -7, -11, -15, and -23
propeller blades with Serial Numbers less than 882038 and not listed
in ASB's No. 14SF-61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-
A95, Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, installed on but not
limited to Aerospatiale ATR42-100, ATR42-300, ATR42-320, ATR72,
ATR72-210 and deHavilland DHC-8-100, DHC-8-200, DHC-8-300 series
aircraft, accomplish the following:
(1) Within the next 300 flight cycles, after the effective date
of this AD, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection for cracks
in the blade taper bore in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A95, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995.
(2) For propeller blades that have been previously inspected in
accordance with Hamilton Standards ASB's No. 14SF-61-A93, dated
December 7, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1, dated December 15,
1995, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-
61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1,
dated December 21, 1995, within 500 flight cycles since last
inspection or 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
(3) Propeller blades that cannot be inspected for cracks in
accordance with Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A95, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995, due to the lead wool absorbing the ultrasonic signal, must
be inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A93, dated December 7, 1995, or
No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, within the
next 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. -
(4) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14SF-61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision
1, dated December 21, 1995, must be inspected in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-
A93, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1, dated
December 15, 1995.
(5) Thereafter, perform repetitive ultrasonic shear wave
inspections at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles in
accordance with the applicable ASB's.
(6) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14SF-61-A93, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1,
dated December 15, 1995, must be removed from service and replaced
with a serviceable part prior to further flight.
(e) For all Hamilton Standard Models 14SF-17, and -19 propeller
blades with Serial Numbers less than 882038, installed on but not
limited to Canadair CL-215T and CL-415 series aircraft, accomplish
the following:
(1) Within the next 300 flight cycles, after the effective date
of this AD, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection for cracks
in the blade taper bore in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A95, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995.
(2) For propeller blades that have been previously inspected in
accordance with Hamilton Standards ASB's No. 14SF-61-A93, dated
December 7, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1, dated December 15,
1995, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-
61-A95, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1,
dated December 21, 1995, within 500 flight cycles since last
inspection or 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
(3) Propeller blades that cannot be inspected for cracks in
accordance with Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A95, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995, due to the lead wool absorbing the ultrasonic signal, must
be inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A93, dated December 7, 1995, or
No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, within the
next 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(4) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits
[[Page 18056]]
specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-A95, dated December
18, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A95, Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995,
must be removed from service and inspected in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14SF-61-
A93, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-A93, Revision 1, dated
December 15, 1995.
(5) Thereafter, perform repetitive ultrasonic shear wave
inspections at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles in
accordance with the applicable ASB's.
(6) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14SF-61-A93, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14SF-61-93, Revision 1,
dated December 15, 1995, must be removed from service and replaced
with a serviceable part prior to further flight.
(f) For all Hamilton Standard Models 14RF-19 propeller blades
with Serial Numbers less than 882038, installed on but not limited
to SAAB-SCANIA SF 340B series aircraft, accomplish the following:
(1) Within the next 300 flight cycles, after the effective date
of this AD, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection for cracks
in the blade taper bore in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-19-61-A57, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-19-61-A57, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995.
(2) For propeller blades that have been previously inspected in
accordance with Hamilton Standards ASB's No. 14RF-19-61-A55, dated
December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-19-61-A55, Revision 1, dated December
15, 1995, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-19-61-A57, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-19-61-A57,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, within 1,000 flight cycles
since last inspection or 300 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(3) Propeller blades that cannot be inspected for cracks in
accordance with Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-19-61-A57, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-19-61-A57, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995, due to the lead wool absorbing the ultrasonic signal, must
be inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-19-61-A55, dated December 7, 1995,
or No. 14RF-19-61-A55, Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, within
the next 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(4) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's 14RF-19-
61-A57, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-19-61-A57, Revision 1,
dated December 21, 1995, must be inspected in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-19-
61-A55, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-19-61-A55, Revision 1,
dated December 15, 1995.
(5) Thereafter, perform repetitive ultrasonic shear wave
inspections at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles in
accordance with the applicable ASB's.
(6) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-19-61-A55, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-19-61-A55,
Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, must be removed from service
and replaced with a serviceable part prior to further flight.
(g) For all Hamilton Standard Model 14RF-21 propeller blades
with Serial Numbers less than 882038, installed on but not limited
to Construcciones Aeronauticas SA (CASA) CN-235 series aircraft,
accomplish the following:
(1) Within the next 300 flight cycles, after the effective date
of this AD, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection for cracks
in the blade taper bore in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-21-61-A75, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-21-61-A75, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995.
(2) For propeller blades that have been previously inspected in
accordance with Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-21-61-A73, dated
December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-21-61-A73, Revision 1, dated December
15, 1995, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-21-61-A75, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-21-61-A75,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, within 2,500 flight cycles
since last inspection or 300 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(3) Propeller blades that cannot be inspected for cracks in
accordance with Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-21-61-A75, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-21-61-A75, Revision 1, dated December
21, 1995, due to the lead wool absorbing the ultrasonic signal, must
be inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-21-61-A73, dated December 7, 1995,
or No. 14RF-21-61-A73, Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, within
the next 300 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(4) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-21-61-A75, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 14RF-21-61-A75,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, must be inspected in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-21-61-A73, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-21-61-A73,
Revision 1, dated December 18, 1995.
(5) Thereafter, perform repetitive ultrasonic shear wave
inspections at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight cycles in
accordance with the applicable ASB's.
(6) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
14RF-21-61-A73, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 14RF-21-61-A73,
Revision 1, dated December 15, 1995, must be removed from service
and replaced with a serviceable part prior to further flight.
(h) For all Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace 6/5500/F
propeller blades, with Serial Numbers less than 882038, installed on
but not limited to British Aerospace ATP series aircraft, accomplish
the following:
(1) Within the next 300 flight cycles, after the effective date
of this AD, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection for cracks
in the blade taper bore in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 6/5500/F-61-A43, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 6/5500/F-61-A43, Revision 1, dated
December 21, 1995.
(2) For propeller blades that have been previously inspected in
accordance with Hamilton Standards ASB's No. 6/5500/F-61-A41, dated
December 7, 1995, or No. 6/5500/F-61-A41, Revision 1, dated December
18, 1995, perform an ultrasonic shear wave inspection in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
6/5500/F-61-A43, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 6/5500/F-61-A43,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, as applicable within 2,500
flight cycles since last inspection or 300 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(3) Propeller blades that cannot be inspected for cracks in
accordance with Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 6/5500/F-61-A43, dated
December 18, 1995, or No. 6/5500/F-61-A43, Revision 1, dated
December 21, 1995, due to the lead wool absorbing the ultrasonic
signal, must be inspected in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 6/5500/F-61-A41, dated
December 7, 1995, or No. 6/5500/F-61-A41, Revision 1, dated December
18, 1995, within the next 300 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD.
(4) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 6/
5500/F-61-A43, dated December 18, 1995, or No. 6/5500/F-61-A43,
Revision 1, dated December 21, 1995, must be inspected in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Hamilton Standard ASB's No.
6/5500/F-61-A41, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 6/5500/F-61-A41
Revision 1, dated December 18, 1995.
(5) Thereafter, perform repetitive ultrasonic shear wave
inspections at intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight cycles in
accordance with the applicable ASB's.
(6) Propeller blades that have ultrasonic shear wave indications
that exceed the limits specified in Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 6/
5500/F-61-A41, dated December 7, 1995, or No. 6/5500/F-61-A41,
Revision 1, dated December 18, 1995, must be removed from service
and replaced with a serviceable part prior to further flight.
(i) For all Hamilton Standard Model 14SFL11 propellers installed
on Aerospatiale ATR72-210 series aircraft, remove these propellers
from service prior to further flight, and replace with serviceable
Hamilton Standard 247F propellers.
(j) The ultrasonic inspection of the propeller blade taper bore
must be performed by a Level II or III inspector who is qualified
under the guidelines established by the American Society of
Nondestructive Testing or MIL-STD-410 or FAA-approved equivalent,
and must be trained by Hamilton Standard-approved personnel on how
to do
[[Page 18057]]
this inspection procedure. The individual returning the aircraft to
service is required to verify that the ultrasonic inspection was
accomplished in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph.
(k) For repetitive inspections, propeller blades may be
evaluated to determine if the lead wool is absorbing the ultrasonic
signal at any time during the respective flight cycle repetitive
inspection interval to determine if the lead wool removal is
required to complete the ultrasonic shear wave inspection.
(l) No later than August 31, 1996, for all Model 14RF-9
propeller blades with S/N's less than 885718, perform the taper bore
repair, eddy current inspect (ECI) and fluorescent penetrant inspect
(FPI) the taper bore, perform a wall thickness check, and shotpeen,
in accordance with the procedures described in Hamilton Standard ASB
No. 14RF-9-61-A94, Revision 1, dated March 6, 1996. Propeller blades
repaired in accordance with the original issuance of Hamilton
Standard ASB No. 14RF-9-61-A94, dated February 6, 1996, need not be
repaired again. Propeller blades found to be beyond repair limits
specified in these ASB's must be removed from service.
(m) No later than February 28, 1997, for all Model 14RF-19
propeller blades with S/N's less than 885718, perform the taper bore
repair, ECI and FPI the taper bore, perform a wall thickness check,
and shotpeen, in accordance with the procedures described in
Hamilton Standard ASB No. 14RF-19-61-A53, Revision 1, dated March 6,
1996. Propeller blades repaired in accordance with the original
issuance of Hamilton Standard ASB No. 14RF-19-61-A53, dated February
6, 1996, need not be repaired again. Propeller blades found to be
beyond repair limits specified in these ASB's must be removed from
service.
(n) No later than February 28, 1997, for all Model 14RF-21
propeller blades with S/N's less than 885718, perform the taper bore
repair, ECI and FPI the taper bore, perform a wall thickness check,
and shotpeen, in accordance with the procedures described in
Hamilton Standard ASB No. 14RF-21-61-A72, Revision 1, dated March 6,
1996. Propeller blades repaired in accordance with the original
issuance of Hamilton Standard ASB No. 14RF-21-61-A72, dated February
6, 1996, need not be repaired again. Propeller blades found to be
beyond repair limits specified in these ASB's must be removed from
service.
(o) No later than February 28, 1997, for all Model 14SF
propeller blades with S/N's less than 885718, perform the taper bore
repair, ECI and FPI the taper bore, perform a wall thickness check,
and shotpeen, in accordance with the procedures described in
Hamilton Standard ASB No. 14SF-61-A92, Revision 1, dated March 6,
1996. Propeller blades repaired in accordance with the original
issuance of Hamilton Standard ASB No. 14SF-61-A92, dated February 6,
1996, need not be repaired again. Propeller blades found to be
beyond repair limits specified in these ASB's must be removed from
service.
(p) No later than February 28, 1997, for all Model 6/5500/F
propeller blades with S/N's less than 885718, perform the taper bore
repair, ECI and FPI the taper bore, perform a wall thickness check,
and shotpeen, in accordance with the procedures described in
Hamilton Standard ASB No. 6/5500/F-61-A39, Revision 1, dated March
6, 1996. Propeller blades repaired in accordance with the original
issuance of Hamilton Standard ASB No. 6/5500/F-61-A39, dated
February 6, 1996, need not be repaired again. Propeller blades found
to be beyond repair limits specified in these ASB's must be removed
from service.
(q) Performing the requirements of paragraphs (l), (m), (n),
(o), or (p) of this AD, as applicable, constitutes terminating
action to the repetitive ultrasonic shear wave inspection
requirements of this AD.
(r) For the purpose of this AD, a flight cycle is defined as one
takeoff and the next landing of an aircraft. In addition, each touch
and go is defined as a flight cycle.
(s) For propellers installed on Canadair CL-215T and CL-415
water bomber aircraft, each water scoop constitutes one-half flight
cycle.
(t) Propeller blades removed from service after inspections
performed in accordance with AD 95-18-06 R1 or 96-01-01, and
subsequently repaired in accordance with the requirements of this AD
and found to be serviceable, may be returned to service.
(u) 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, Boston Aircraft Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Boston Aircraft Certification
Office.
(v) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(w) The actions required by this AD shall be done in accordance
with the following service documents:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No.- Pages- Revision- Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 14RF-9-61-A91--.................. 1-40- Original-.................... Dec. 7, 1995.
Total Pages: 40
No. 14RF-9-61-A91--.................. 1-42- 1--.......................... Dec. 15, 1995.
Total Pages: 42
No. 14RF-19-61-A55--................. 1-40- Original-.................... Dec. 7, 1995.
Total Pages: 40
No. 14RF-19-61-A55--................. 1-42- 1--.......................... Dec. 15, 1995.
Total Pages: 42
No. 14RF-21-61-A73--................. 1-40- Original-.................... Dec. 7, 1995.
Total Pages: 40
No. 14RF-21-61-A73--................. 1-42- 1--.......................... Dec. 15, 1995.
Total Pages: 42
No. 14SF-61-A93-..................... 1-40- Original-.................... Dec. 7, 1995.
Total Pages: 40
No. 14SF-61-A93-..................... 1-42- 1--.......................... Dec. 15, 1995.
Total Pages: 42
No. 6/5500/F-61-A41---............... 1-40- Original-.................... Dec. 7, 1995.
Total Pages: 40
No. 6/5500/F-61-A41---............... 1-42- 1--.......................... Dec. 18, 1995.
Total Pages: 42
No. 14RF-9-61-A95---................. 1-36- Original-.................... Dec. 18, 1995.
Total Pages: 36
No. 14RF-9-61-A95---................. 1-36- 1--.......................... Dec. 21, 1995.
Total Pages: 36
No. 14RF-19-61-A57---................ 1-35- Original-.................... Dec. 18, 1995.
Total Pages: 35
No. 14RF-19-61-A57---................ 1-35- 1--.......................... Dec. 21, 1995.
Total Pages: 35
No. 14RF-21-61-A75---................ 1-35- Original-.................... Dec. 18, 1995.
[[Page 18058]]
Total Pages: 35
No. 14RF-21-61-A75---................ 1-35- 1--.......................... Dec. 21, 1995.
Total Pages: 35
No. 14SF-61-A95-..................... 1-37- Original-.................... Dec. 18, 1995.
Total Pages: 37
No. 14SF-61-A95-..................... 1-37- 1--.......................... Dec. 21, 1995.
Total Pages: 37
No. 6/5500/F-61-A43---............... 1-35- Original-.................... Dec. 18, 1995.
Total Pages: 35
No. 6/5500/F-61-A43---............... 1-35- 1--.......................... Dec. 21, 1995.
Total Pages: 35
No. 14RF-9-61-A94---................. 1-80- 1--.......................... Mar. 6, 1996.
Total Pages: 80
No. 14RF-19-61-A53---................ 1-77- 1--.......................... Mar. 6, 1996.
Total Pages: 77
No. 14RF-21-61-A72---................ 1-77- 1--.......................... Mar. 6, 1996.
Total Pages: 77
No. 14SF-61-A92---................... 1-79- 1--.......................... Mar. 6, 1996.
Total Pages: 79
No. 6/5500/F-61-A39---............... 1-77- 1--.......................... Mar. 6, 1996.
Total Pages: 77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The incorporation by reference of Hamilton Standard Alert
Service Bulletins (ASB's): No. 14RF-9-61-A91, No. 14RF-19-61-A55,
No. 14RF-21-61-A73, No. 14SF-61-A93, and No. 6/5500/F-61-A41, all
dated December 7, 1995, and Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-
A91, Revision 1, No. 14RF-19-61-A55, Revision 1, No. 14RF-21-61-A73,
and Revision 1, No. 14SF-61-A93, all dated December 15, 1995, and
No. 6/5500/F-61-A41, Revision 1, dated December 18, 1995; and
Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A95, No. 14RF-19-61-A57, No.
14RF-21-61-A75, No. 14SF-61-A95, and No. 6/5500/F-61-A43, all dated
December 18, 1995, and Hamilton Standard ASB's No. 14RF-9-61-A95,
Revision 1, No. 14RF-19-61-A57, Revision 1, No. 14RF-21-61-A75,
Revision 1, No. 14SF- 61-A95, Revision 1, and No. 6/5500/F-61-A43,
Revision 1, all dated December 21, 1995, was previously approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of January 9, 1996, (61 FR
617). For those documents not previously approved for incorporation
by reference, the 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 for those documents not previously approved.
Copies may be obtained from Hamilton Standard, One Hamilton Road,
Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010; telephone (203) 654-6876. Copies may
be inspected at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(x) This amendment becomes effective on May 9, 1996.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 16, 1996.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9806 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9798 Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act RegulationsExemptions From the Requirement To Report Transactions in Currency
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18204-18211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9798]
[[Page 18203]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of the Treasury
_______________________________________________________________________
31 CFR Part 103
Exemptions From the Requirement To Report Transactions in Currency and
List of Entities Who Are Exempt; Interim Rule and Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18204]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
31 CFR Part 103
RIN 1506-AA10; 1506-AA11
Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations--Exemptions From
the Requirement To Report Transactions in Currency
AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Treasury.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains an interim rule eliminating the
requirement to report transactions in currency in excess of $10,000,
between depository institutions and certain classes of ``exempt
persons'' defined in the rule. The interim rule applies to currency
transactions occurring after April 30, 1996. It is adopted as a major
step in reducing the burden imposed upon financial institutions by the
Bank Secrecy Act and increasing the cost-effectiveness of the counter-
money laundering policies of the Department of the Treasury. The
interim rule is part of a process to achieve the reduction set by the
Money Laundering Suppression Act of 1994 in the number of currency
transaction reports filed annually by depository institutions.
DATES: Effective date. The interim rule is effective May 1, 1996.
Comment deadline. Comments must be received by August 1, 1996.
Applicability. This interim rule applies to transactions in
currency occurring after April 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: Office of
Regulatory Policy and Enforcement, Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, Department of the Treasury, 2070 Chain Bridge Road, Vienna,
Virginia 22182-2536, Attention: Interim CTR Exemption Rule.
Submission of comments. An original and four copies of any comment
must be submitted. All comments will be available for public inspection
and copying, and no material in any such comments, including the name
of any person submitting comments, will be recognized as confidential.
Accordingly, material not intended to be disclosed to the public should
not be submitted.
Inspection of comments. Comments may be inspected at the Department
of the Treasury between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., in the Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network (``FinCEN'') reading room, on the third
floor of the Treasury Annex, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20220. Persons wishing to inspect the comments
submitted should request an appointment by telephoning (202) 622-0400.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Johnson, Assistant Director,
Office of Financial Institutions Policy, FinCEN, at (703) 905-3920;
Charles Klingman, Office of Financial Institutions Policy, FinCEN, at
(703) 905-3920; Stephen R. Kroll, Legal Counsel, FinCEN, at (703) 905-
3590; or Cynthia A. Langwiser, Office of Legal Counsel, FinCEN, at
(703) 905-3590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
This document adds, as an interim rule, a new paragraph (h) (the
``Interim Rule'') to 31 CFR 103.22. The Interim Rule exempts, from the
requirement for the reporting of transactions in currency in excess of
$10,000, transactions occurring after April 30, 1996, between
depository institutions 1 and certain classes of exempt persons
defined in the Interim Rule. The Interim Rule is adopted to implement
the terms of 31 U.S.C. 5313(d) (and related provisions of 31 U.S.C.
5313 (f) and (g)), which were added to the Bank Secrecy Act by section
402(a) of the Money Laundering Suppression Act of 1994 (the ``Money
Laundering Suppression Act''), Title IV of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-325
(September 23, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As explained below, the text of the rule itself uses the
term ``bank,'' which as defined in 31 CFR 103.11 (c) includes both
banks and other classes of depository institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Statutory Provisions
The Bank Secrecy Act, Titles I and II of Pub. L. 91-508, as
amended, codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31
U.S.C. 5311-5330, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, inter alia,
to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to keep records
and file reports that are determined to have a high degree of
usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory matters, and to implement
counter-money laundering programs and compliance procedures.
Regulations implementing Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act (codified at
31 U.S.C. 5311-5330) appear at 31 CFR Part 103. The authority of the
Secretary to administer Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act has been
delegated to the Director of FinCEN.
The reporting by financial institutions of transactions in currency
in excess of $10,000 has long been a major component of the Department
of the Treasury's implementation of the Bank Secrecy Act. The reporting
requirement is imposed by 31 CFR 103.22, a rule issued under the broad
authority granted to the Secretary of the Treasury by 31 U.S.C. 5313(a)
to require reports of domestic coin and currency transactions.
Four new provisions (31 U.S.C. 5313 (d) through (g)) concerning
exemptions were added to 31 U.S.C. 5313 by the Money Laundering
Suppression Act. Subsection (d)(1) provides that the Secretary of the
Treasury shall exempt a depository institution from the requirement to
report currency transactions with respect to transactions between the
depository institution and the following categories of entities:
(A) Another depository institution.
(B) A department or agency of the United States, any State, or
any political subdivision of any State.
(C) Any entity established under the laws of the United States,
any State, or any political subdivision of any State, or under an
interstate compact between 2 or more States, which exercises
governmental authority on behalf of the United States or any such
State or political subdivision.
(D) Any business or category of business the reports on which
have little or no value for law enforcement purposes.
Subsection (d)(2) states that:
The Secretary of the Treasury shall publish in the Federal
Register at such times as the Secretary determines to be appropriate
(but not less frequently than once each year) a list of all of the
entities whose transactions with a depository institution are exempt
under this subsection from the [currency transaction] reporting
requirements. * * *
The companion provisions of 31 U.S.C. 5313(e) authorize the Secretary
to permit a depository institution to grant additional, discretionary,
exemptions from currency transaction reporting. Subsection (f) places
limits on the liability of a depository institution in connection with
a transaction that has been exempted from reporting under either
subsection (d) or subsection (e) and provides for the coordination of
any exemption with other Bank Secrecy Act provisions, especially those
relating to the reporting of suspicious transactions. New subsection
(g) defines ``depository institution'' for purposes of the new
exemption provisions.
Section 402(b) of the Money Laundering Suppression Act states
simply that in administering the new statutory exemption procedures:
the Secretary of the Treasury shall seek to reduce, within a
reasonable period of time, the number of reports required to be
filed in the aggregate by depository institutions pursuant to
section 5313(a) of title 31 * * *
[[Page 18205]]
by at least 30 percent of the number filed during the year preceding
[September 23, 1994,] the date of enactment of [the Money Laundering
Suppression Act].
During the period September 24, 1993 through September 23, 1994,
approximately 11.2 million currency transaction reports were filed. Of
that number, approximately 10.9 million reports were filed by
depository institutions. Thus the statute contemplates a reduction of
at least approximately 3.3 million filings per annum.
B. Shortcomings of the Present Exemption System
The enactment of 31 U.S.C. 5313 (d) through (g) reflects a
Congressional intention to ``reform * * * the procedures for exempting
transactions between depository institutions and their customers.'' See
H.R. Rep. 103-652, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 186 (August 2, 1994). The
administrative exemption procedures at which the statutory changes are
directed are found in 31 CFR 103.22(b)(2) and (c) through (f); those
procedures have not succeeded in eliminating routine currency
transactions by businesses from the operation of the currency
transaction reporting requirement.
Several reasons have been given for this lack of success. The first
is the retention by banks of liability for making incorrect exemption
determinations. The risk of potential liability is made more serious by
the complexity of the administrative exemption procedures (which
require banks, for example, to assign dollar limits to each exemption
based on the amounts of currency projected to be needed for the
customary conduct of the exempt customer's lawful business). Finally,
advances in technology have made it less costly for some banks to
report all currency transactions rather than to incur the
administrative costs (and risks) of exempting customers and then
administering the terms of particular exemptions properly.
The problems created by the administrative exemption system include
that system's failure to provide the Treasury with information needed
for thoughtful administration of the Bank Secrecy Act. Although banks
are required to maintain a centralized list of exempt customers and to
make that list available upon request, see 31 CFR 103.22 (f) and (g),
there is no way short of a bank-by-bank request for lists (with the
time and cost such a request would entail both for banks and
government) for Treasury to learn the extent to which routine
transactions are effectively screened out of the system or (for that
matter) the extent to which exemptions have been granted in situations
in which they are not justified.
In crafting the 1994 statutory provisions relating to mandatory and
discretionary exemptions, Congress sought to alter the burden of
liability and uncertainty that the administrative exemption system
created. The statutory provisions embraced several categories of
transactions that were either already partially exempt or plainly
eligible for exemption under the administrative exemption system.2
In addition, Congress authorized the Treasury to exempt under the
mandatory rules, as indicated above, ``[a]ny business or category of
business the reports on which have little or no value for law
enforcement purposes.'' 31 U.S.C. 5313 (d)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Thus, as noted below, transactions in currency between
domestic banks are already exempt from reporting, see 31 CFR
103.22(b)(1)(ii), and ``[d]eposits or withdrawals, exchanges of
currency or other payments and transfers by local or state
governments, or the United States or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities'' are one of the categories of transactions
specifically described as eligible for exemption by banks. See 31
CFR 103.22(b)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Objectives of the Interim Rule
As indicated above, the Interim Rule is the first step in the use
of section 402 of the Money Laundering Suppression Act to transform the
Bank Secrecy Act provisions relating to currency transaction reporting.
That transformation has four objectives.
The first is to reduce the burden of currency transaction
reporting. That reduction comes in part through the issuance of a
blanket regulatory exemption covering transactions in currency between
one depository institution and another within the United States and
between depository institutions and government departments and agencies
at all levels. But at least an equal (and likely a significantly
greater) part of the reduction comes from the decision to treat as
being of little interest to law enforcement transactions in currency
between depository institutions and corporations whose common stock is
listed on certain national stock exchanges.
That decision reflects a second, related objective of the Interim
Rule: to begin the process of limiting currency transaction reports to
transactions for which the benefits of the reporting requirement (both
providing usable information to enforcement officials and creating a
deterrent against attempts to misuse the financial system) justify the
costs of supplying the information to the Treasury. It is unlikely that
reports of routine currency transactions for a company of sufficient
size to be traded on a national securities exchange can be of
significant use, by themselves, to law enforcement, regulatory, or tax
authorities.
The third objective is to focus the Bank Secrecy Act reporting
system on transactions that signal matters of clear interest to law
enforcement and regulatory authorities. In publishing the final rule
relating to the reporting of suspicious transactions under the Bank
Secrecy Act, Treasury stated ``its judgment that reporting of
suspicious transactions in a timely fashion is a key component of the
flexible and cost-efficient compliance system required to prevent the
use of the nation's financial system for illegal purposes.'' See 61 FR
4326, 4327 (February 5, 1996). The Interim Rule re-enforces the central
importance of suspicious transaction reporting to Treasury's counter-
money laundering program; expanded suspicious transaction reporting
forms a basis for steps to reduce sharply the extent to which routine
currency transactions by ongoing businesses are required to be
reported. Currency transactions, like non-currency transactions, are
required to be reported under the terms of new 31 CFR 103.21, if they
constitute suspicious transactions as defined in that section; nothing
in the Interim Rule reduces or alters the obligations imposed by 31 CFR
103.21. See 31 U.S.C. 5313(f)(2)(B).
The relationship between required suspicious transaction reporting
and expanded and simplified exemptions from routine currency
transaction reporting is a strong one; each rule forms an integral part
of the policy of the other. The substitution of suspicious transaction
reporting for routine reporting of all currency transactions by exempt
persons in effect defines what a routine transaction for an exempt
person is. That is, a routine currency transaction, in the case of an
exempt person, is a transaction that does not trigger the suspicious
transaction reporting requirements, because the transaction does not,
for example, give the bank a reason to suspect money laundering, a
violation of a reporting requirement, or the absence of a business
purpose. See 31 CFR 103.21(a)(2) (i)-(iii).
The fourth objective of the Interim Rule is to create an exemption
system that works. Thus choices have been made with an eye to achieving
ease of administration and comprehensibility--the very factors whose
absence hindered the prior administrative exemption process.
[[Page 18206]]
FinCEN has attempted to craft a rule that will be easily understood
by the banking professionals who must apply it. That meant painting
with a broad brush; any general exemption rule will almost certainly
include within its terms some results that are not optimal when viewed
in isolation.
FinCEN understands that the changeover to the new system will
require an initial period of effort by both the Treasury and banking
institutions; it is impossible to reduce the volume of currency
transaction reports to the extent that the Interim Rule tries to do
without creating some small degree of temporary inconvenience as the
terms of the system change. FinCEN believes, however, that the
transition period will be relatively short and that the new greatly
streamlined exemption procedures, once in place, will be self-
sustaining and will produce a leaner, less burdensome, and more cost
effective exemption system than now exists.
FinCEN is eager to improve the terms of the rule as necessary to
eliminate temporary incongruities. Comments on ways in which the rule
could be improved in this regard are specifically invited.
D. Additional Relief Under Study
The Interim Rule is the first result of FinCEN's work to put in
place the new exemption system contemplated by the provisions of 31
U.S.C. 5313 (d) through (g). The goal of FinCEN's work in this area,
like the Congress' goal in shaping the Money Laundering Suppression Act
provisions on exemptions, is to reduce the cost of Bank Secrecy Act
compliance and to further a fundamental restructuring of the Bank
Secrecy Act. The restructuring emphasizes cost-effective collection of
only that information that is likely to benefit law enforcement and
regulatory authorities.
In solving the issues posed by implementation of the new statutory
exemption rules, FinCEN has consulted regularly with banking industry
representatives. For example, under the auspices of Bank Secrecy Act
Advisory Group it convened a working session of bank officials to
discuss possible structures for the new exemption system and the
constraints that bank operating procedures posed for broad-scale relief
from unnecessary currency transaction reporting.
In this connection, FinCEN is aware that the Interim Rule and any
final rule resulting therefrom may well affect the operation of large
banks in urban areas more than the operation of smaller community-based
institutions, if only because larger companies tend to do business with
larger banks and because the Interim Rule does not simplify the
exemption system with respect to transactions by privately held
companies, large and small, whose banking history and business would
also justify a simplified exemption system.
Accordingly, FinCEN is working now on a notice of proposed
rulemaking implementing the discretionary exemption authority contained
in 31 U.S.C. 5313(e) and will at the appropriate time consult with the
banking community in shaping proposals to implement that authority.
Meanwhile, banks will still be able to maintain any exemptions properly
granted under the current administrative system. Commenters on this
Interim Rule are invited to include in their comments any suggestions
on the projected second stage of the exemption effort.
III. Specific Provisions
A. 103.22(a). Reports of Currency Transactions
A new sentence is added following the first sentence of paragraph
(a) of 31 CFR 103.22 to provide a cross-reference in that paragraph to
the provisions of new paragraph (h) added by the Interim Rule.
B. 103.22(h)(1). Currency Transactions of Exempt Persons With Banks
Occurring After April 30, 1996
Paragraph (h)(1) states the general effect of the Interim Rule.
That is, simply and directly: no currency transaction report is
required to be filed by a bank for a transaction in currency by an
exempt person occurring after April 30, 1996.
The Interim Rule uses the term ``bank'' rather than ``depository
institution'' to define the class of financial institutions to which
the Interim Rule applies. Although 31 U.S.C. 5313(d) speaks of
exemptions for transactions with ``depository institutions'' (as the
latter term is defined in 31 U.S.C. 5313(g)), FinCEN believes that the
broad definition of bank contained in 31 CFR 301.11(c) includes all of
the categories of institutions included in the statutory ``depository
institution'' definition; because the term ``bank'' is familiar to bank
officials who work with the Bank Secrecy Act, substitution of a new
term whose effect is the same does not appear either necessary or
advisable.
The Interim Rule applies only to transactions between exempt
persons and banks, to reflect the terms of 31 U.S.C. 5313(d); it does
not apply to transactions between exempt persons and financial
institutions other than banks. Comments are invited about whether the
rule should extend to transactions with such other classes of financial
institutions.
Although 31 U.S.C. 5313(d) speaks of ``mandatory'' exemptions, the
Interim Rule does not affirmatively prohibit banks from continuing to
report routine currency transactions with exempt persons. Treasury
believes that the incentives created by the Interim Rule are, as
Congress intended them to be, sufficiently great to lead banks to take
advantage of the new exemption system to a far greater extent than they
took advantage of the prior administrative exemption system.
The Interim Rule, however, is not simply a regulatory relief
measure. As indicated above, it is part of a fundamental restructuring
of the Bank Secrecy Act's administration. Treasury hopes and expects
that banks will be willing to undertake the one-time effort necessary
to make the new, substantially different system work.
C. 103.22(h)(2). Exempt Person
Under the Interim Rule, the crucial exemption determinant is
whether a particular entity is an ``exempt person.'' That term is
defined in new paragraph (h)(2).
The first three categories of exempt persons specified in paragraph
(h)(2) are those to whom exemption is required to be granted by 31
U.S.C. 5313(d)(1)(A)-(C).3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The language of 31 U.S.C. 5313(d)(1)(A)-(C) is quoted in
section IIA of this Supplementary Information section, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banks. The first category of exempt person is banks themselves,
with the result that transactions between banks will not require
reporting. In most cases, no reporting is required at present for such
transactions; 31 CFR 103.22(b)(1)(ii) states flatly that the currency
transaction reporting requirement does not ``require reports * * * of
transactions between domestic banks.'' The definition is limited to
banking operations and transactions within the United States. Thus a
transfer of currency by a bank inside the United States to a bank
outside the United States is not exempt under the Interim Rule.
Departments and Agencies of the United States and of States and Their
Political Subdivisions
The second category of exempt person includes departments and
agencies of the United States, of any state, and of any political
subdivision of any state.
[[Page 18207]]
The definition of ``United States'' used in 31 CFR 103.11 includes not
only the states but also the District of Columbia and the various
territories and insular possessions of the United States. See 31 CFR
103.11(nn); as of August 1, 1996, the definition will also include the
Indian lands. See 61 FR 7054, 7056 (February 23, 1996). Thus
departments and agencies of the governments of these areas are also
classified as exempt persons under the definition.
Entities Exercising Governmental Authority
The third category of exempt person includes any entity established
under the laws of the United States 4, of any state, or of any
political subdivision of any state, or under an interstate compact
between two or more states, that exercises governmental authority on
behalf of the United States or any such state or political subdivision.
Operating rules for making determinations about the governmental
entities are included in paragraph (h)(4), discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Again, the broad definition of ``United States'' applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listed Corporations
The fourth category of person subject to mandatory exemption under
31 U.S.C. 5313(d) is ``any business or category of business the reports
on which have little or no value for law enforcement purposes.''
Treasury is making use of that provision to treat as an exempt person
any corporation whose common stock (i) is listed on the New York Stock
Exchange or the American Stock Exchange (but not including stock listed
on the Emerging Company Marketplace of the American Stock Exchange), or
(ii) has been designated as a Nasdaq National Market Security listed on
the Nasdaq Stock Market (but not including stock listed under the
separate ``Nasdaq Small-Cap Issues'' category). For convenience, this
class of exempt persons is referred to in this discussion as ``listed
corporations.''
The ``listed corporation'' formulation has been adopted for several
reasons. First, Treasury believes that the formulation is a convenient
and accurate way of describing many, if not most, large-scale
enterprises that make extensive routine use of currency in their normal
business operations. Second, the list of corporations described in the
formulation is readily available and is published in general
circulation newspapers each morning. Finally, the scale of enterprises
listed on the nation's largest securities exchanges, and the variety of
internal and external controls to which they are subject--whether as a
matter of market discipline or government regulation--make their use
for the sort of money laundering or tax evasion marked by anomalous
transactions in currency, or that could be detected by a simple
examination of currency transaction reports, sufficiently unlikely that
the benefits of a uniform formulation far exceed the apparent risks of
such a formulation. This is especially true because of the continuing
applicability of the suspicious transaction reporting rules to all
(non-currency and currency) transactions between listed corporations
and banks.
The determination whether a company is a corporation for purposes
of the Interim Rule depends solely upon the formal manner of its
organization; if the company has a corporate charter, it is a
corporation, and if it does not, it is not a corporation, for purposes
of the Interim Rule. The sort of ``corporate equivalence'' analysis
required, for example, for certain purposes to determine an entity's
status under the Internal Revenue Code is neither called for nor
permitted by the Interim Rule.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Again, there may be a limited group of entities, listed on
the national securities exchanges but organized abroad, for which
such a distinction raises issues of interpretation that cannot be
dealt with effectively in the Interim Rule. Guidance is requested on
whether such issues exist and, if so, how they should be resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At present the Interim Rule applies only to corporations, even
though Treasury understands that the equity interests of some
partnerships and business trusts are also listed on the named
securities exchanges. Comments are invited as to whether the definition
of exempt person should be extended to all persons whose equity
interests are so listed.
Consolidated Subsidiaries of Listed Corporations
Many, if not most, listed corporations include groups of subsidiary
operating corporations whose treatment under the Interim Rule raises
significant issues. Such subsidiaries are not named in stock exchange
listings, but the policy of the statute and Interim Rule cannot be
effectively implemented without the inclusion of such subsidiaries in
the exempt person category.
That fact raises an issue of what might be called the ``burden'' of
reducing regulatory burden. Many definitions of parent-subsidiary
relationship are quite technical and of importance only to legal,
accounting, and investment specialists; even definitions phrased only
in terms of stock ownership often devolve into questions of direct or
indirect stock ownership that can be extremely difficult to resolve.
In that context, mindful of the need to provide as simple a
formulation as possible, the Interim Rule treats as a subsidiary any
corporation that files a consolidated income tax return with a listed
corporation. The choice of this standard was not any easy one; its
chief rationale is that the fact of consolidation (as opposed to, say,
eligibility for consolidation) is relatively easy to determine by
asking corporate customers (and by asking corporate officials to ask
their tax or accounting departments if necessary).
Franchisees of listed corporations (or of their subsidiaries) are
not included within the definition of exempt person, unless such
franchisees are independently exempt as listed corporations or listed
corporation subsidiaries. A local corporation that holds a McDonald's
franchise, for example, is not an exempt person simply because
McDonald's Corporation is a listed corporation; a McDonald's outlet
owned by McDonald's Corporation directly, on the other hand, would be
an exempt person, because McDonald's Corporation's common stock is
listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
Still, the definition is not optimal. It introduces a note of
complexity into the Interim Rule, and Internal Revenue Service
(``IRS'') statistics indicate that at best only 70 to 80 percent of the
companies eligible to file consolidated income tax returns with their
parent companies actually do so. The success of the Interim Rule in
reducing the volume of currency transaction reports will depend in part
upon the effectiveness and acceptance of the definition of subsidiary
company, and comments are encouraged about the appropriateness of the
definition. FinCEN would especially welcome ideas about other
formulations, based upon sound banking practice, that bank employees
would find easy to apply and that would accomplish the goals of the
Interim Rule more effectively than a definition based upon
consolidation for income tax filing purposes.
D. 103.22(h)(3). Designation of Exempt Persons
The Interim Rule imposes one condition on a bank's exemption of
currency transactions of a customer who satisfies the definition of
exempt person. That condition is that a single form be filed
designating the exempt person and the bank that recognizes it as such.
The designation is to be made by a bank by filing for each exempt
person a single Internal Revenue Service
[[Page 18208]]
Form 4789 (the form now used by banks and others to report a
transaction in currency) that is marked (in the Form's line 36) to
indicate its purpose and that provides identifying information about
the exempt person and bank involved.
The designation requirement must be satisfied, for existing
customers, on or before August 15, 1996. The requirement is a condition
subsequent; that is, a bank may recognize a customer as an exempt
person on April 30, and stop filing currency transaction reports as
permitted by the Interim Rule, even though it does not satisfy the
designation requirement for the customer until August 15, 1996.
The designation of new customers as exempt persons must be made no
later than 30 days following the first transaction in currency in
excess of $10,000 between a bank and the new customer. (Because persons
may become new customers during the period April 30-August 15, 1996, a
new customer to whom the 30 day designation rule applies is,
technically, a customer who satisfies the exempt person definition and
who becomes a customer, or who seeks to engage in its first transaction
in currency, after July 15, 1996.)
Under the Interim Rule, each bank that deals with an exempt person
must satisfy the designation requirement. FinCEN hopes to be able to
use the results of the designation filings to compile a list of exempt
persons that can itself be published in the Federal Register, as
contemplated by 31 U.S.C. 5313(d)(2), in place of the shorter
descriptive notice of exempt persons that is published
contemporaneously with the publication of the Interim Rule. The
designation filings will also be used to review the effectiveness of
the Interim Rule (and of any final rule that is derived from it) and
the extent to which its terms are understood and used by banks.
E. 103.22(h)(4). Operating Rules for Applying Definition of Exempt
Person
The Interim Rule contains several provisions that are designed to
assist banks in applying the definition of ``exempt person.''
1. General Rule
As indicated above, every effort has been made to craft a rule that
is as simple to understand and to administer as its broad objective
will permit. Application of the Interim Rule requires instead that
banks simply make one or more determinations about the status of
particular customers. The rule does not specify detailed procedures for
making or documenting the determinations required. (Indeed, one defect
of the administrative exemption system was its need for detailed
procedural steps for authorizing exemptions. See 31 CFR 103.22(d).)
Instead, paragraph (h)(4)(i) explains that banks are expected to
perform the same degree of due diligence in determining whether a
customer is an exempt person (and documenting that determination) that
a reasonable and prudent bank would perform in the conduct of its own
business in avoiding losses from fraud or misstatement. In other words,
FinCEN's objective is to leave it to bankers, who have already designed
business procedures and protocols to deal with similar problems, to
adapt their present procedures to achieve the results sought by the
Interim Rule.
An assessment of compliance with the terms of the Interim Rule will
focus not on whether a bank necessarily makes every judgment perfectly,
but on whether it takes the steps a reasonable and prudent banker would
take to create systems to apply the Interim Rule's terms. Such an
approach is a corollary to the limitations on liability set by 31
U.S.C. 5318(f)(1) and repeated in paragraph (h)(6) of the Interim Rule;
under the liability limitations a bank remains subject to penalties if,
inter alia, it has a reason to believe that a particular customer or
transaction does not meet the criteria established for the granting of
an exemption.
2. Government Status
Paragraph (h)(4)(ii) permits a bank to determine the status of a
customer as a government department, agency, or instrumentality based
on its name or community knowledge, much like the so-called ``eyeball
test,'' cf. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6049-4(c)(1)(ii), for the determination
of exempt recipient status for the purposes of information reporting
and withholding with respect to interest payments under applicable
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
The determination whether an entity exercises ``governmental
authority'' is unfortunately not amenable to such a simple test, and
the second sentence of paragraph (h)(4)(ii) states a general definition
of governmental authority for use by banks.
3. Status as Listed Corporation
Paragraph (h)(4)(iii) permits a bank to rely on any New York,
American, or Nasdaq Stock Market listing published in a newspaper of
general circulation. Such listings are easily identified. For example,
in the Wall Street Journal, which is published and distributed
nationally, the listings are entitled, respectively, ``NEW YORK STOCK
EXCHANGE COMPOSITE TRANSACTIONS,'' ``AMERICAN STOCK EXCHANGE COMPOSITE
TRANSACTIONS,'' AND ``NASDAQ NATIONAL MARKET ISSUES.'' Because such
listings often make use of the trading symbols (abbreviated company
names) for each stock, banks may also rely on any commonly accepted or
published stock symbol guide in reviewing the newspaper listings to
determine if the listings include their customers.
4. Consolidated Return Status
The treatment of a corporation as an exempt person because it is
included in the consolidated income tax return of a listed corporation
presents one of the more difficult issues of administration in the
Interim Rule. The corporations included on any consolidated return are
required to be shown on Internal Revenue Service Form 851 (Affiliation
Schedule) filed with the return; a bank may rely upon any reasonably
authenticated photocopy of Form 851 (or the equivalent thereof for the
appropriate tax year) in determining the status of a particular
corporation, or it may rely upon any other reasonably authenticated
information (for example, an officer's certificate) relating to a
corporation's filing status.
F. 103.22(h)(5). Limitation on Exemption
The exemption for transactions by an exempt person applies only
with respect to transactions involving that person's own funds. The
exemption does not apply to situations in which an exempt person is
engaging in a transaction as an agent on behalf of another, beneficial
owner of currency. (If the principal for whom the agent is acting is
itself an exempt person, the exempt status of the principal is what
causes the transaction to be exempt.) In other words, an exempt person
cannot lend its status, for a fee or otherwise, to another person's
transactions.
G. 103.22(h)(6). Effect of Exemption; Limitation on Liability
The designation requirement applies equally to exempt persons who
have previously been the subject of bank-initiated exemptions under the
administrative exemption system as it does to other customers.
Once a bank has complied with the terms of the Interim Rule, it is
generally protected, by 31 U.S.C. 5313(f) and paragraph (h)(6) of the
Interim Rule, from any penalty for failure to file a currency
transaction report with respect to a currency transaction by an exempt
person. The protection does not apply if
[[Page 18209]]
the bank knowingly files false or incomplete information relating to
the exempt person (for example on an designation filing) or with
respect to the transaction (for example on a suspicious activity
report). The protection also does not apply if the bank has reason to
believe at the time the exemption is granted that the customer does not
satisfy the definition of exempt person or if the transaction is not a
transaction of the exempt person.
It is anticipated that the Interim Rule will supersede the
administrative exemption system with respect to categories of exempt
persons named in the Interim Rule, 60 days after a final rule based on
the Interim Rule is published. At that time, transactions in currency
with exempt persons after April 30, 1996 will be exempt from reporting
by banks only to the extent that the new terms are satisfied.
H. 103.22(h)(7). Obligation To File Suspicious Activity Reports, etc.
The provisions of the Interim Rule create an exemption only with
respect to the currency transaction reporting requirement. The Interim
Rule does not create any exemption, and in fact has no effect of any
kind, on the requirement that banks file suspicious activity reports
with respect to transactions, including currency and non-currency
transactions, that satisfy the requirements of the rules of FinCEN and
the federal bank supervisory agencies relating to suspicious activity
reporting.6 (Indeed, as indicated above, the reduction in currency
transaction report volume reflects in part Treasury policy to rely to
the greatest extent possible on reports of truly suspicious activity.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 61 FR 4326, 4332, 4338 (February 5, 1996) (FinCEN,
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Reserve
Board); 61 FR 6095, 6100 (February 16, 1996) (Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation and Office of Thrift Supervision); and 61 FR
11526 (March 21, 1996) (National Credit Union Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, multiple exchanges of small denominations of currency
into large denominations of currency or currency transactions that are
not (or whose amounts are not) commensurate with the stated business or
other activity of the exempt person conducting the transaction, or on
whose behalf the transaction is conducted, may indicate the need to
file suspicious activity reports with respect to transactions in
currency. Similarly a sudden need for currency by a business that never
before had such a need can form a basis for the determination that a
suspicious activity report is due. In all cases, whether such a report
is required is governed by the rules of 31 CFR 103.21, rules on whose
application the Interim Rule has no effect.
I. 103.22(h)(8). Revocation
The Interim Rule makes clear that the status of an exempt person as
such may be revoked at any time by the Treasury Department. Revocation
will be prospective in all cases except those to which the protections
of liability conferred by 31 U.S.C. 5313(f) and 31 CFR 103.22(h)(6) do
not apply.
IV. Regulatory Matters
A. Executive Order 12866
The Department of the Treasury has determined that this interim
rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
B. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 Statement
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act''), Pub. L. 104-4 (March 22, 1995), requires that an
agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary
impact statement is required, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act
also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. FinCEN has
determined that it is not required to prepare a written statement under
section 202 and has concluded that on balance this interim rule
provides the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative to
achieve the objectives of the rule.
C. Administrative Procedure Act
Because the Interim Rule implements the statute and grants
significant relief from existing regulatory requirements, it is found
to be impracticable to comply with notice and public procedure under 5
U.S.C. 553(b). Because the Interim Rule grants exemptions to current
requirements, it may be made effective before 30 days have passed after
its publication date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an
initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 604) are
not applicable to this Interim Rule because the agency was not required
to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any
other law.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
This Interim Rule is being issued without prior notice and public
procedure pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553).
By expanding the applicable exemptions from an information collection
that has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under control number 1505-0063, the Interim Rule
significantly reduces the existing burden of information collection
under 31 CFR 103.22. Thus, although the Interim Rule advances the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq., and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, the Paperwork
Reduction Act does not require FinCEN to follow any particular
procedures in connection with the promulgation of the Interim Rule.
F. Compliance With 5 U.S.C. 801
Prior to the date of publication of this document in the Federal
Register, FinCEN will have submitted to each House of the Congress and
to the Comptroller General the information required to be submitted or
made available with respect to the Interim Rule by the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 801 (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B).
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Banks, banking, Currency, Foreign Banking,
Foreign currencies, Gambling, Investigations, Law enforcement,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Taxes.
Amendment
For the reasons set forth above in the preamble, 31 CFR Part 103 is
amended as set forth below:
PART 103--FINANCIAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING OF CURRENCY AND
FOREIGN TRANSACTIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 103 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5330.
2. Section 103.22 is amended by adding a new sentence immediately
following the first sentence in paragraph (a)(1) and by adding a new
paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 103.22 Reports of currency transactions.
(a)(1) * * * Transactions in currency by exempt persons with banks
occurring after April 30, 1996, are not subject to
[[Page 18210]]
this requirement to the extent provided in paragraph (h) of this
section. * * *
* * * * *
(h) No filing required by banks for transactions by exempt persons
occurring after April 30, 1996. (1) Currency transactions of exempt
persons with banks occurring after April 30, 1996. Notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, no bank is required to
file a report otherwise required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
with respect to any transaction in currency between an exempt person
and a bank that is conducted after April 30, 1996.
(2) Exempt person. For purposes of this section, an exempt person
is:
(i) A bank, to the extent of such bank's domestic operations;
(ii) A department or agency of the United States, of any state, or
of any political subdivision of any state;
(iii) Any entity established under the laws of the United States,
of any state, or of any political subdivision of any state, or under an
interstate compact between two or more states, that exercises
governmental authority on behalf of the United States or any such state
or political subdivision;
(iv) Any corporation whose common stock is listed on the New York
Stock Exchange or the American Stock Exchange (except stock listed on
the Emerging Company Marketplace of the American Stock Exchange) or
whose common stock has been designated as a Nasdaq National Market
Security listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market (except stock listed under
the separate ``Nasdaq Small-Cap Issues'' heading); and
(v) Any subsidiary of any corporation described in paragraph
(h)(2)(iv) of this section whose federal income tax return is filed as
part of a consolidated federal income tax return with such corporation,
pursuant to section 1501 of the Internal Revenue Code and the
regulations promulgated thereunder, for the calendar year 1995 or for
its last fiscal year ending before April 15, 1996.
(3) Designation of exempt persons. (i) A bank must designate each
exempt person with whom it engages in transactions in currency, on or
before the later of August 15, 1996, and the date 30 days following the
first transaction in currency between such bank and such exempt person
that occurs after April 30, 1996.
(ii) Designation of an exempt person shall be made by a single
filing of Internal Revenue Service Form 4789, in which line 36 is
marked ``Designation of Exempt Person'' and items 2-14 (Part I, Section
A) and items 37-49 (Part III) are completed. The designation must be
made separately by each bank that treats the person in question as an
exempt person. (For availability, see 26 CFR 601.602.)
(iii) This designation requirement applies whether or not the
particular exempt person to be designated has previously been treated
as exempt from the reporting requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section under the rules contained in paragraph (b) or (e) of this
section.
(4) Operating rules for designating exempt persons. (i) Subject to
the specific rules of this paragraph (h), a bank must take such steps
to assure itself that a person is an exempt person (within the meaning
of applicable provisions of paragraph (h)(2) of this section) that a
reasonable and prudent bank would take to protect itself from loan or
other fraud or loss based on misidentification of a person's status.
(ii) A bank may treat a person as a governmental department,
agency, or entity if the name of such person reasonably indicates that
it is described in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) or (h)(2)(iii) of this section,
or if such person is known generally in the community to be a State,
the District of Columbia, a tribal government, a Territory or Insular
Possession of the United States, or a political subdivision or a
wholly-owned agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing. An
entity generally exercises governmental authority on behalf of the
United States, a State, or a political subdivision, for purposes of
paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section, only if its authorities include
one or more of the powers to tax, to exercise the authority of eminent
domain, or to exercise police powers with respect to matters within its
jurisdiction.
(iii) In determining whether a person is described in paragraph
(h)(2)(iv) of this section, a bank may rely on any New York Stock
Exchange, American Stock Exchange, or Nasdaq Stock Market listing
published in a newspaper of general circulation and on any commonly
accepted or published stock symbol guide.
(iv) In determining whether a person is described in paragraph
(h)(2)(v) of this section, a bank may rely upon any reasonably
authenticated corporate officer's certificate or any reasonably
authenticated photocopy of Internal Revenue Service Form 851
(Affiliation Schedule) or the equivalent thereof for the appropriate
tax year.
(5) Limitation on exemption. A transaction carried out by an exempt
person as an agent for another person who is the beneficial owner of
the funds that are the subject of a transaction in currency is not
subject to the exemption from reporting contained in paragraph (h)(1)
of this section.
(6) Effect of exemption; limitation on liability. (i) FinCEN may in
the future determine by amendment to this part that the exemption
contained in this paragraph (h) shall be the only basis for exempting
persons described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section from the
reporting requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) No bank shall be subject to penalty under this part for
failure to file a report required by paragraph (a) of this section with
respect to a currency transaction by an exempt person with respect to
which the requirements of this paragraph (h) have been satisfied,
unless the bank:
(A) Knowingly files false or incomplete information with respect to
the transaction or the customer engaging in the transaction; or
(B) Has reason to believe at the time the exemption is granted that
the customer does not meet the criteria established by this paragraph
(h) for treatment of the transactor as an exempt person or that the
transaction is not a transaction of the exempt person.
(iii) A bank that files a report with respect to a currency
transaction by an exempt person rather than treating such person as
exempt shall remain subject with respect to each such report to the
rules for filing reports, and the penalties for filing false or
incomplete reports, that are applicable to reporting of transactions in
currency by persons other than exempt persons. A bank that continues
for the period permitted by paragraph (h)(6)(i) of this section to
treat a person described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section as exempt
from the reporting requirements of paragraph (a) of this section on a
basis other than as provided in this paragraph (h) shall remain subject
in full to the rules governing an exemption on such other basis and to
the penalties for failing to comply with the rules governing such other
exemption.
(7) Obligation to file suspicious activity reports, etc. Nothing in
this paragraph (h) relieves a bank of the obligation, or alters in any
way such bank's obligation, to file a report required by Sec. 103.21
with respect to any transaction, including, without limitation, any
transaction in currency, or relieves a bank of any other reporting or
recordkeeping obligation imposed by this part (except the obligation to
report transactions in currency pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section to the extent provided in this paragraph (h)).
(8) Revocation. The status of any person as an exempt person under
this paragraph (h) may be revoked by
[[Page 18211]]
FinCEN by written notice, which may be provided by publication in the
Federal Register in appropriate situations, on such terms as are
specified in such notice. In addition, and without any action on the
part of the Treasury Department:
(i) The status of a corporation as an exempt person pursuant to
paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this section ceases once such corporation
ceases to be listed on the applicable stock exchange; and
(ii) The status of a subsidiary as an exempt person under paragraph
(h)(2)(v) of this section ceases once such subsidiary ceases to be
included in a consolidated federal income tax return of a person
described in paragraph (h)(2)(iv) of this section.
* * * * *
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Stanley E. Morris,
Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
[FR Doc. 96-9798 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-03-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9791 Statement of Earnings and Benefit Estimates
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18075-18078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9791]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Parts 404 and 422
RIN 0960-AD74
Statement of Earnings and Benefit Estimates
AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA).
ACTION: Final rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending our rules on sending statements of earnings
and benefit information to individuals. Under our current rules, which
implement section 1143(a) of the Social Security Act (the Act), we are
required to send a statement to an eligible individual who requests it.
Under these final rules, we will provide the statement without a
request to an eligible individual, as required by section 1143(c) of
the Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These rules are effective April 24, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Schanberger, Legal Assistant, 3-
B-1 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235,
(410) 965-8471. For information on eligibility or claiming benefits,
call our national toll-free number 1-800-772-1213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1143 of the Act requires the
Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) to provide to
eligible individuals ``a social security account statement''
(statement). We must fulfill this requirement in three phases. In the
first phase, we were required, by October 1, 1990, to provide, upon the
request of an ``eligible individual,'' a statement that contains
certain information described below. Section 1143 defines an ``eligible
individual'' as one who has a social security account number, has
attained age 25 or over, and has wages or net earnings from self-
employment.
The statement we provide under section 1143 of the Act must contain
the following information as of the date of the request:
1. The amount of wages paid to and self-employment income derived
by the individual;
2. An estimate of the aggregate of the employee and self-employment
contributions of the individual for old-age, survivors', and disability
insurance benefits;
3. A separate estimate of the aggregate of the employee and self-
employment contributions of the individual for medicare hospital
insurance coverage; and
4. An estimate of the potential monthly retirement (old-age),
disability, dependents', and survivors' insurance benefits payable on
the individual's earnings record and a description of medicare hospital
insurance coverage.
We are carrying out this first phase, which is required by section
1143(a) of the Act and which we explained in the final rules published
November 23, 1992, in the Federal Register (57 FR 54917). In these
final rules, we explain how we will fulfill our obligations in the
second and third phases of section 1143.
The second phase of providing statements, as stated in section
1143(c)(1) of the Act, requires that by not later than September 30,
1995, we must furnish this statement to each ``eligible individual''
who has attained age 60 by October 1, 1994 (i.e., by the beginning of
fiscal year 1995), is not receiving benefits under title II of the Act,
and for whom we can determine a current mailing address by methods we
consider appropriate. We must also send this statement to each
``eligible individual'' who attains age 60 in fiscal years 1995 through
1999, i.e., October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1999, if the
individual is not receiving benefits under title II of the Act, and if
we can determine a current mailing address by methods we consider
appropriate. In the case of an individual who attains age 60 in fiscal
years 1995 through 1999, we will mail a statement to the individual
either in the fiscal year in which he or she attains age 60 or in an
earlier fiscal year, as resources allow. We will mail the statement
without requiring a request from the individual. We will also advise
individuals receiving these statements that the information in our
records will be updated annually and is available upon request. In
February 1995, we began mailing the statements to individuals who
attained age 60 by October 1, 1994.
The third phase of providing statements, as stated in section
1143(c)(2) of the Act, requires that beginning not later than October
1, 1999, we must provide this statement on an annual basis to each
``eligible individual'' who is not receiving benefits under title II
and for whom we can determine a current mailing address by methods we
consider appropriate. We must provide a statement without a request
from the eligible individual and, unlike the second phase, regardless
of whether the eligible individual has attained age 60.
To implement the second and third phases of section 1143, we are
using our records of assigned social security account numbers to
identify eligible individuals who are not receiving benefits under
title II of the Act. We have decided that the appropriate method now
for determining an individual's current mailing address is to obtain it
from the individual taxpayer files of the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS). The IRS is authorized by section 6103(m)(7) of the Internal
Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 6103(m)(7)), as added by section 5111 of Public
Law 101-508 (the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990), to
disclose this information to us for our use in mailing the statements
required by section 1143 of the Act. This source of address information
is readily available to us, i.e., electronically accessible, using
social security numbers as identifiers, and was clearly contemplated by
Congress in the enactment of section 6103(m)(7) of the Internal Revenue
Code.
Because individuals who live in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
and Guam generally are not required to pay Federal income taxes, the
IRS does not have their addresses. We have arranged to use the
addresses from their local taxpayer records, which the tax agencies in
these three entities will provide to us.
In these final regulations, we state the circumstances under which
we will not send an unrequested statement. Those circumstances, stated
in the new Sec. 404.812(b), are based on our judgment that sending, or
attempting to send, a statement to specified categories of individuals
is not reasonably required under section 1143 of the Act.
We will mail the statements on a flow basis throughout the fiscal
year, rather than in one mass mailing. This is an administratively
effective and cost-efficient method of handling the more than 6 million
statements we mailed in fiscal year 1995 and the 10 to 120 million we
expect to mail annually beginning in 1996. As resources allow, we may
mail statements to some eligible individuals, who attain age 60 in
fiscal years 1996 through 1999, even before the fiscal year in which
they attain age 60.
[[Page 18076]]
In the final rules we published on November 23, 1992, (57 FR
54917), we revised Sec. 404.810 to describe an individual's right to
obtain a statement of earnings and benefit estimates, how to request
it, and the information we need to comply with the request. In a new
Sec. 404.811, we listed the information that we will furnish in the
statement of earnings and benefit estimates. Further, we revised
Sec. 422.125 so that most of the rules on statements of earnings and
benefit estimates are now located in subpart I of part 404.
In these final regulations, we are revising Sec. 404.811 for
consistency with the new Sec. 404.812, which explains the statement we
will send without a request, as required by section 1143(c) of the Act.
We will also indicate whether the individual has the required credits
(quarters of coverage) to be eligible for each type of benefit, and the
ages at which various retirement amounts are potentially payable.
When individuals request statements, they are asked for information
about when they expect to retire, i.e., stop working, how much they
earned last year, and how much they expect to earn this year and in
future years up to retirement. In Sec. 404.811, we explain that if the
individual does not already have the required credits (quarters of
coverage) to be eligible to receive benefits, we may include up to
eight additional estimated credits (four per year maximum) based on the
requester's information about earnings for last year and this year that
are not yet on our records. In addition, we state that the benefit
estimates will be based partly on the information the requester
provided about his or her planned retirement age and current and future
earnings.
For the unrequested statements, we will not have information from
the individual. Instead, we will estimate the individual's recent and
future earnings based on his or her current social security record. In
Sec. 404.812, we explain that if there are earnings recorded in either
of the two years before the year in which the individual is selected to
get a statement, we will use the same earnings amount as that recorded
in the later of these two years to project earnings for the current
year and future years when we estimate the benefits. In addition, if
the individual does not already have the required credits (quarters of
coverage) to be eligible to receive benefits, we will use that last
recorded earnings amount to estimate up to eight additional credits
(four per year) for the last year and the current year. If there are no
earnings recorded in either of the two years preceding the year of
selection, we will not estimate any current and future earnings or
additional credits (quarters of coverage) for the individual.
In summary, both Secs. 404.811 and 404.812 list the information
that we will include in the revised statement format. In addition,
Sec. 404.812 explains who will be sent an unrequested statement, who
will not be sent an unrequested statement, and the selection and
mailing process we will use. We are also amending Sec. 422.125 to
conform it to the changes we have described for subpart I of part 404.
On January 19, 1995, we published proposed rules in the Federal
Register at 60 FR 3787. We received no comments. However, as explained
previously, we have revised these final rules to provide that we may
mail statements to some individuals even before the year in which they
attain age 60. These revisions will be advantageous to eligible
individuals and are consistent with the Act.
Regulatory Procedures
Since these rules interpret the statute, and provide statements of
policy, the 30-day delay in effectuating rules, as provided in 5 U.S.C.
553(d), does not apply.
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed these rules and
determined that they meet the criteria for a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that these final regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since these
regulations affect only individuals. Therefore, a regulatory
flexibility analysis as provided in Public Law 96-354, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These final regulations impose no additional reporting and
recordkeeping requirements subject to Office of Management and Budget
clearance.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001 Social
Security-Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security-Retirement
Insurance; 96.004 Social Security-Survivors Insurance; 93.773
Medicare-Hospital Insurance)
List of Subjects
20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits;
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.
20 CFR Part 422
Administrative practice and procedure; Freedom of information;
Organization and functions (Government agencies); Social Security.
Dated: December 20, 1995.
Shirley Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending subpart I
of part 404 and subpart B of part 422 of 20 CFR chapter III as follows:
PART 404--FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
(1950- )
Subpart I--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart I of part 404 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 205(a), (c)(1), (c)(2)(A), (c)(4), (c)(5),
(c)(6), and (p), 702(a)(5), and 1143 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 405(a), (c)(1), (c)(2)(A), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), and (p),
902(a)(5), and 1320b-13).
2. Section 404.811 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 404.811 The statement of earnings and benefit estimates you
requested.
(a) General. After receiving a request for a statement of earnings
and the information we need to comply with the request, we will provide
you or your authorized representative a statement of the earnings we
have credited to your record at the time of your request. With the
statement of earnings, we will include estimates of the benefits
potentially payable on your record, unless you do not have the required
credits (quarters of coverage) for any kind of benefit(s). (However,
see paragraph (b)(3) of this section regarding the possibility of our
estimating up to eight additional credits on your record.) If we do not
provide a statement of earnings and an estimate of all the benefits
potentially payable, or any other information you requested, we will
explain why.
(b) Contents of statement of earnings and benefit estimates. The
statement of your earnings and benefit estimates will contain the
following information:
(1) Your social security taxed earnings as shown by our records as
of the date of your request;
(2) An estimate of the social security and medicare hospital
insurance taxes paid on your earnings (although we do not maintain such
tax information);
(3) The number of credits, i.e., quarters of coverage, not
exceeding 40, you have for both social security and medicare hospital
insurance purposes, and the number you need to be eligible
[[Page 18077]]
for social security and also for medicare hospital insurance coverage.
If you do not already have the required credits (quarters of coverage)
to be eligible to receive social security benefits and medicare
hospital insurance coverage, we may include up to eight additional
estimated credits (four per year) based on the earnings you told us you
had for last year and this year that we have not yet entered on your
record;
(4) A statement as to whether you meet the credits (quarters of
coverage) requirements, as described in subpart B of this part, for
each type of social security benefit when we prepare the benefit
estimates, and also whether you are eligible for medicare hospital
insurance coverage;
(5) Estimates of the monthly retirement (old-age), disability,
dependents' and survivors' insurance benefits potentially payable on
your record if you meet the credits (quarters of coverage)
requirements. The benefit estimates we send you will be based partly on
your stated earnings for last year (if not yet on your record), your
estimate of your earnings for the current year and for future years
before you plan to retire, and on the age at which you plan to retire.
The estimate will include the retirement (old-age) insurance benefits
you could receive at age 62 (or your current age if you are already
over age 62), at full retirement age (currently age 65 to 67, depending
on your year of birth) or at your current age if you are already over
full retirement age, and at age 70;
(6) A description of the coverage under the medicare program;
(7) A reminder of your right to request a correction of your
earnings record; and
(8) A remark that an annually updated statement is available on
request.
3. Section 404.812 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 404.812 Statement of earnings and benefit estimates sent without
request.
(a) Who will be sent a statement. Unless one of the conditions in
paragraph (b) of this section applies to you, we will send you, without
request, a statement of earnings and benefit estimates if:
(1) You have a social security account number;
(2) You have wages or net earnings from self-employment on your
social security record;
(3) You have attained age 25 or older, as explained in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section; and
(4) We can determine your current mailing address.
(b) Who will not be sent a statement. We will not send you an
unrequested statement if any of the following conditions apply:
(1) You do not meet one or more of the conditions of paragraph (a)
of this section;
(2) Our records contain a notation of your death;
(3) You are entitled to benefits under title II of the Act;
(4) We have already sent you a statement, based on your request, in
the fiscal year we selected you to receive an unrequested statement;
(5) We cannot obtain your address (see paragraph (c)(2) of this
section); or
(6) We are correcting your social security earnings record when we
select you to receive a statement of earnings and benefit estimates.
(c) The selection and mailing process. Subject to the provisions of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, we will use the following
process for sending statements without requests:
(1) Selection. We will use our records of assigned social security
account numbers to identify individuals to whom we will send
statements.
(2) Addresses. If you are living in one of the 50 States or the
District of Columbia, our current procedure is to get your address from
individual taxpayer files of the Internal Revenue Service, as
authorized by section 6103(m)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code (26
U.S.C. 6103(m)(7)). If you live in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or
Guam, we will get your address from the taxpayer records of the place
in which you live.
(3) Age. If you have attained age 60 on or before September 30,
1995, we will send you a statement by that date. If you attain age 60
on or after October 1, 1995 but no later than September 30, 1999, we
will send you a statement in the fiscal year in which you attain age
60, or in an earlier year as resources allow. Also, we will inform you
that an annually updated statement is available on request. Beginning
October 1, 1999, we will send you a statement each year in which you
are age 25 or older.
(4) Ineligible. If we do not send you a statement because one or
more conditions in paragraph (b) of this section apply when you are
selected, we will send a statement in the first appropriate fiscal year
thereafter in which you do qualify.
(5) Undeliverable. If the statement we send you is returned by the
Post Office as undeliverable, we will not remail it.
(d) Contents of statement of earnings and benefit estimates. To
prepare your statement and estimate your benefits, we will use the
earnings in our records. If there are earnings recorded for you in
either of the two years before the year in which you are selected to
get a statement, we will use the later of these earnings as your
earnings for the current year and future years when we estimate your
benefits. In addition, if you do not already have the required credits
(quarters of coverage) to be eligible to receive benefits, we will use
that last recorded earnings amount to estimate up to eight additional
credits (four per year) for last year and the current year if they are
not yet entered on your record. If there are no earnings entered on
your record in either of the two years preceding the year of selection,
we will not estimate current and future earnings or additional credits
for you. Your earnings and benefit estimates statement will contain the
following information:
(1) Your social security taxed earnings as shown by our records as
of the date we select you to receive a statement;
(2) An estimate of the social security and medicare hospital
insurance taxes paid on your earnings (although we do not maintain such
tax information);
(3) The number of credits, i.e., quarters of coverage, not
exceeding 40 (as described in paragraph (d) of this section), that you
have for both social security and medicare hospital insurance purposes,
and the number you need to be eligible for social security benefits and
also for medicare hospital insurance coverage;
(4) A statement as to whether you meet the credit (quarters of
coverage) requirements, as described in subpart B of this part, for
each type of social security benefit when we prepare the benefit
estimates, and also whether you are eligible for medicare hospital
insurance coverage;
(5) Estimates of the monthly retirement (old-age), disability,
dependents' and survivors' insurance benefits potentially payable on
your record if you meet the credits (quarters of coverage)
requirements. If you are age 50 or older, the estimates will include
the retirement (old-age) insurance benefits you could receive at age 62
(or your current age if you are already over age 62), at full
retirement age (currently age 65 to 67, depending on your year of
birth) or at your current age if you are already over full retirement
age, and at age 70. If you are under age 50, instead of estimates, we
may provide a general description of the benefits (including auxiliary
benefits) that are available upon retirement;
(6) A description of the coverage provided under the medicare
program;
(7) A reminder of your right to request a correction of your
earnings record; and
(8) A remark that an annually updated statement is available on
request.
[[Page 18078]]
PART 422--ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES
Subpart B--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart B of part 422 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 205, 232, 702(a)(5), 1131, and 1143 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405, 432, 902(a)(5), 1320b-1 and
1320b-13.)
2. Section 422.125 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 422.125 Statements of earnings; resolving earnings discrepancies.
(a) Obtaining a statement of earnings and estimated benefits. An
individual may obtain a statement of the earnings on his earnings
record and an estimate of social security benefits potentially payable
on his record either by writing, calling, or visiting any social
security office, or by waiting until we send him one under the
procedure described in Sec. 404.812 of this chapter. An individual may
request this statement by completing the proper form or by otherwise
providing the information the Social Security Administration requires,
as explained in Sec. 404.810(b) of this chapter.
(b) Statement of earnings and estimated benefits. Upon receipt of
such a request or as required by section 1143(c) of the Social Security
Act, the Social Security Administration will provide the individual,
without charge, a statement of earnings and benefit estimates or an
earnings statement. See Secs. 404.811 through 404.812 of this chapter
concerning the information contained in these statements.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-9791 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10163 Operation of Certain Domestic Ship and Aircraft Radio Stations Without Individual Licenses
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10163]
[[Page 18225]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Federal Communications Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
47 CFR Parts 80 and 87
Operation of Certain Domestic Ship and Aircraft Radio Stations Without
Individual Licenses; Final and Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 18226]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 80 and 87
[CC Docket No. 96-82, FCC 96-145]
Operation of Certain Domestic Ship and Aircraft Radio Stations
Without Individual Licenses
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim rule amends the Federal Communications
Commission's (Commission) rules regarding ship and aircraft radio
stations, to remove the individual radio licensing requirement and to
authorize by rule the operation of radio equipment on recreational
vessels and aircraft. The rules are effective immediately pending a
proceeding to consider amending the Commission's rules. A Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking concerning these rules is published concurrently in
the Federal Register. The Commission finds that while receipt of public
comment is necessary to make a final determination of public interest
regarding the repeal of licensing rules for recreational vessels and
aircraft, it is not in the public interest to continue requiring such
applications to be filed pending consideration of the proposed rules.
The basis for this finding is that this interim rule will immediately
reduce the regulatory burdens on the public and the Commission, and
avoid the need to return thousands of applications and regulatory fees
if the proposals in this proceeding are ultimately adopted. The interim
rule does not make licensees eligible for a partial refund of user
fees. However, if the interim rules are adopted as final, such
licensees may at that time be eligible for a partial refund of user
fees pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1159. The Commission further believes that
the interim rules are necessary to avoid confusion and regulatory
uncertainty in the marine and aviation communities. Moreover, the
Commission does not believe that any party will be harmed by
implementation of the interim rules, pending completion of the
rulemaking proceeding.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Magnotti, Private Wireless
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0871, or at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, it is hereby certified that this rule will not have a significant
impact on small business entities.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 80
Radio, Vessels.
47 CFR Part 87
Radio.
Parts 80 and 87 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 80 and 87, are amended as follows:
PART 80--STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 154, 303, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat.
1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609; 3 UST
3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377.
2. Section 80.13 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 80.13 Station license required.
(a) Except for those excluded in paragraph (c) of this section,
stations in the maritime service must be licensed by the FCC either
individually or by fleet.
(b) One ship station license will be granted for operation of all
maritime services transmitting equipment on board a vessel.
(c) A ship station is licensed by rule and does not need an
individual license issued by the FCC if the ship station is not subject
to the radio equipment carriage requirements of the Communications Act
or any other treaty or agreement to which the United States is
signatory, the ship station does not travel to foreign ports, and the
ship station does not make international communications. A ship station
licensed by rule is authorized to transmit radio signals using a marine
radio operating in the 156-162 MHz band, any type of EPIRB, and any
type of radar installation. All other transmissions must be authorized
under a ship station license. Even though an individual license is not
required, a ship station licensed by rule must be operated in
accordance with all applicable operating requirements, procedures, and
technical specifications found in this Part 80.
PART 87--AVIATION SERVICES
1 . The authority citation for Part 87 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303,
unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-
1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-156, 301-609.
2. A new Sec. 87.18 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 87.18 Station license required.
(a) Except for those excluded in paragraph (b) of this section,
stations in the aviation service must be licensed by the FCC either
individually or by fleet.
(b) An aircraft station is licensed by rule and does not need an
individual license issued by the FCC if the aircraft station is not
subject to the radio equipment carriage requirements of any statute,
treaty, or agreement to which the United States is signatory, the
aircraft station is on board a private aircraft, and the aircraft
station does not make international flights or communications. Even
though an individual license is not required, an aircraft station
licensed by rule must be operated in accordance with all applicable
operating requirements, procedures, and technical specifications found
in this Part 87.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10163 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10106 Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18088-18092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10106]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-5461-2]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) today is
granting a petition submitted by Bethlehem Steel Corporation (``BSC''),
Lackawanna, New York, to exclude (or ``delist''), on a one-time basis,
certain solid wastes contained in a landfill from being listed
hazardous wastes. This action responds to BSC's petition to delist
these wastes on a ``generator-specific'' basis from the hazardous waste
lists. Based on careful analyses of the waste-specific information
provided by the petitioner, the Agency has concluded that BSC's
petitioned waste will not adversely affect human health and the
environment. Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned waste
from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory docket for this final rule is located at
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,
VA, and is available for viewing from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (703) 603-9230 for
appointments. The reference number for this docket is F-96-B5EF-FFFFF.
The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for
the first 100 pages, and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional
copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346, or at (703) 412-9810. For
technical information concerning this notice, contact Chichang Chen,
Waste Identification Branch, Office of Solid Waste (Mail Code 5304),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460, (202) 260-7392.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the Agency
to remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
Sec. 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to EPA to allow the Agency to determine that the waste to
be excluded does not meet any of the
[[Page 18089]]
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he has a reasonable
basis to believe that factors (including additional constituents) other
than those for which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a
hazardous waste, that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste
as a hazardous waste.
B. History of This Rulemaking
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC), Lackawanna, New York, petitioned
the Agency to exclude from hazardous waste control its ammonia still
lime sludge presently listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K060. After
evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on December 7, 1995, to exclude
BSC's waste from the lists of hazardous waste under Sec. 261.31 and
Sec. 261.32 (see 60 FR 62794). This rulemaking addresses public
comments received on the proposal and finalizes the proposed decision
to grant BSC's petition.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, New York
A. Proposed Exclusion
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC), located in Lackawanna, New York,
was engaged in primary metal-making and coke-making operations prior to
1983. BSC petitioned the Agency to exclude, on a one-time basis, the
waste contained in an on-site landfill, presently listed as EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K060--``Ammonia still lime sludge from coking
operations''. The listed constituents of concern for EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K060 are cyanide, naphthalene, phenolic compounds, and
arsenic. BSC refers to this landfill as Hazardous Waste Management Unit
No. 2 (HWM-2). Although only a portion of the waste in the landfill is
the ammonia still lime sludge, the entire volume of waste is considered
to be a listed waste in accordance with Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) (i.e., the
mixture rule). The mixture of listed ammonia still lime sludge and
solid waste contained in HWM-2 is the subject of this petition.
BSC petitioned the Agency to exclude its waste because it does not
believe that the waste meets the criteria of the listing. BSC claims
that the mixture of ammonia still lime sludge and solid waste is not
hazardous because the constituents of concern, although present in the
waste, are present in either insignificant concentrations or, if
present at significant levels, are essentially in immobile forms. BSC
also believes that this waste is not hazardous for any other reason
(i.e., there are no additional constituents or factors that could cause
the waste to be hazardous). Review of this petition included
consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) of 1984. See Section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22(d)(2)-(4).
On July 18, 1984, BSC petitioned the Agency to exclude the waste
contained in its on-site landfill identified as HWM-2, and subsequently
provided additional information. After evaluating the petition, the
Agency proposed to deny BSC's petition to exclude the waste contained
in HWM-2 on April 7, 1989 (see 54 FR 14101). The Agency's evaluation of
the petition, which used the ``VHS'' fate and transport model and the
analytical data provided by BSC, indicated that the petitioned waste
exhibited significant concentrations of leachable lead and
benzo(a)pyrene. Furthermore, the Agency considered the sampling and
analysis program conducted in support of the petition to be incomplete.
Moreover, groundwater monitoring data collected from wells monitoring
this on-site landfill indicated that the landfill might have been
adversely impacting groundwater quality at the site. On August 26,
1991, the Agency published a final denial, including responses to
public comments, in the Federal Register (see 56 FR 41944). On October
30, 1991, BSC petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit to overturn EPA's denial decision. Subsequently, BSC
agreed to stay this litigation for a re-evaluation by EPA using a new
fate and transport model (EPA's Composite Model for Landfills
(``EPACML'')) and updated health-based levels, and on November 17, 1992
submitted extensive supplemental waste characterization and groundwater
monitoring data. After reviewing the new data in conjunction with the
existing petition information, the Agency proposed on December 7, 1995
to withdraw its August 26, 1991 final denial decision and to grant
BSC's petition (see 60 FR 62794 for details).
In support of its petition, BSC submitted: (1) Detailed
descriptions and schematics of its manufacturing process; (2) a list of
all raw materials and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all trade
name materials that might be expected to have contributed to the waste;
(3) results from total constituent analyses for the eight Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) metals listed in Sec. 261.24, antimony, nickel,
thallium, and cyanide; (4) results from the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP; SW-846, Method 1311) for the eight TC metals,
antimony, nickel, and thallium; (5) results from the EP leachate
procedure for the eight TC metals, nickel, and cyanide; (6) results
from total constituent analyses for sulfide and reactive sulfide; (7)
results from total oil and grease analyses; (8) results from
characteristics testing for ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity;
(9) results from total constituent analyses for 70 volatile organic and
semivolatile organic constituents, including the TC organic
constituents (excluding pesticides and herbicides); (10) results from
the TCLP analyses for 63 volatile organic and semivolatile organic
constituents, including the TC organic constituents (excluding
pesticides and herbicides); and (11) ground-water monitoring data
collected from wells monitoring the on-site landfill.
B. Response to Public Comments
Comment: The Agency received public comments from one interested
party (BSC) on the December 7, 1995 proposal. The commenter expressed
its strong support for the proposed rule and urged the Agency to
finalize this rulemaking as soon as practicable. The commenter also
stated it ``does not believe that any of its comments materially affect
the Agency analyses, evaluations and conclusions in the proposed
rule.'' However, the commenter recommended a slight modification of the
proposed language for the regulatory exclusion. Specifically, the
commenter recommended that based on its legal survey of the landfill
surface acreage and resulting recalculation of the waste volume
contained in the unit, the proposed exclusion language in the Waste
Description at 40 CFR part 261, Appendix IX be modified to specify
approximately 118,000 cubic yards of waste, in lieu of 110,000 cubic
yards. The commenter contended that such an increase in waste volume
does not affect the Agency's EPACML evaluation of BSC's waste.
Some of the other comments relate to the conservative nature of the
Agency's analysis and evaluation of BSC's petition. The commenter
agreed that EPA's use of the EPACML model as described in the proposal
is an appropriate means for evaluating its petitioned waste. However,
the commenter briefly described several conservative assumptions
(pertaining to input parameter frequency distributions, infinite
steady-state contaminant source, and various subsurface attenuation
mechanisms including biodegradation of organics, metal precipitation,
non-
[[Page 18090]]
linear non-equilibrium sorption phenomena, etc.) inherent in the
EPACML, and believed that the model as proposed is more appropriate for
use as a worst-case, first-stage screening tool in a delisting
evaluation. The commenter also argued that the Agency's use of EP and
TCLP extract concentrations as inputs to the EPACML tends to overstate
the real-world leaching potential of metals from wastes that are not
reasonably likely to be co-disposed in a municipal landfill
environment. Moreover, the commenter questioned the Agency's use of the
proposed health-based levels for lead and 1,1-dichloroethane, meaning
that they may be too stringent.
Finally, the commenter presented a variety of clarifications and
corrections, primarily for the record, on miscellaneous items and
details addressed in the proposed rule. The commenter considered these
to be ``relatively minor''. The commenter also believed that any EPA
statements, comments, or interpretations pertaining to the regulatory
status of the HWM-2 landfill and BSC's compliance obligations are not
necessary.
Response: In the December 7, 1995 proposal, the Agency determined
that disposal in any Subtitle D landfill is the most reasonable, worst-
case disposal scenario for BSC's petitioned waste, that the major
exposure route of concern for any hazardous constituents would be
ingestion of contaminated groundwater, and that the EPACML fate and
transport model is appropriate for evaluating BSC's petitioned waste.
As further explained in the ``Docket Report on EPACML Evaluation of
Bethlehem Steel's Petitioned Waste'' contained in the public docket for
the proposed rule, the Agency used an EPACML dilution/attenuation
factor (DAF) of 48 to evaluate the potential for groundwater
contamination due to contaminant releases from BSC's estimated waste
volume of 110,000 cubic yards. The Agency notes here that this one-time
waste volume of 110,000 cubic yards (equivalent to annual generation of
5,500 cubic yards over 20 years) actually corresponds to an EPACML DAF
of 51. In order to account for possible variations associated with land
survey and volume calculations, the Agency in fact applied a slightly
lower, thus more stringent, DAF of 48 corresponding to one-time waste
volume of 120,000 cubic yards, or 6,000 cubic yards/year x 20 years.
Hence, increasing the petitioned volume from 110,000 cubic yards to
118,000 cubic yards (less than 120,000 cubic yards) has no adverse
effect on the results of the Agency's evaluation of the potential
impact of BSC's waste via groundwater route of exposure.
The small volume increase of 8,000 cubic yards (constituting only
7.3% of 110,000 cubic yards) does not adversely affect the Agency's air
and surface water evaluations either, for the following reasons. As
discussed in the proposed rule, the Agency's evaluation of the
potential hazards resulting from air and surface water routes of
exposure to BSC's petitioned waste quantity of 110,000 cubic yards were
very conservative. Furthermore, the calculated airborne and surface
water release concentrations at the assumed downgradient receptors were
well below (more than 10 times and 29 times lower, respectively) the
applicable air emissions levels of concern and water quality criteria
for consumption of water and organisms used for the evaluation of BSC's
waste (see docket for the proposed rule). Therefore, calculations based
on 118,000 cubic yards (as compared to 110,000 cubic yards) would
result in an insignificant change in air and surface water releases.
Consequently, the Agency is finalizing the exclusion language in 40
CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 2 to delist 118,000 cubic yards of the
petitioned waste as the commenter (i.e., BSC) recommended. The Agency
believes this revised volume more accurately reflects the actual waste
quantity contained in the petitioned HWM-2 landfill. The other issues
raised by the commenter with respect to the conservative nature of the
Agency's analysis and evaluation of BSC's petition as well as the
commenter's clarifications and corrections for the record do not affect
EPA's decision to grant this petition; therefore, the Agency is not
addressing those comments in today's rule. The Agency would like to
refer the readers to relevant Agency responses to some similar comments
provided in previous delisting rulemakings, e.g., 56 FR 67197, December
30, 1991; 58 FR 40067, July 27, 1993; 60 FR 31107, June 13, 1995.
E. Final Agency Decision
For the reasons stated in both the proposal and this final rule,
the Agency believes that BSC's petitioned waste should be excluded from
hazardous waste control. The Agency, therefore, is granting a final
exclusion to Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Lackawanna, New York, for its
ammonia still lime sludge and other co-disposed solid wastes contained
in the on-site landfill referred to as HWM-2, described in the petition
as EPA Hazardous Waste No. K060. This one-time exclusion applies to
118,000 cubic yards of waste covered by BSC's delisting demonstration.
Although management of the waste covered by this petition is
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction by this final exclusion, the
generator of the delisted waste must either treat, store, or dispose of
the waste in an on-site facility, or ensure that the waste is delivered
to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal facility, either of
which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage
municipal or industrial solid waste. Alternatively, the delisted waste
may be delivered to a facility that beneficially uses or reuses, or
legitimately recycles or reclaims the waste, or treats the waste prior
to such beneficial use, reuse, recycling, or reclamation (see 40 CFR
part 260, Appendix I).
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
The final exclusion being granted today is issued under the Federal
(RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to impose their
own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than
EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision which prohibits a Federally-issued
exclusion from taking effect in the States. Because a petitioner's
waste may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both Federal (RCRA)
and State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are urged to contact State
regulatory authorities to determine the current status of their wastes
under the State laws.
Furthermore, some States are authorized to administer a delisting
program in lieu of the Federal program, i.e., to make their own
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
authorized States. If the petitioned waste will be transported to and
managed in any State with delisting authorization, BSC must obtain
delisting authorization from that State before the waste may be managed
as nonhazardous in that State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule is effective on April 24, 1996. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here, because this rule reduces the existing requirements for
persons generating hazardous wastes. In light of the unnecessary
hardship and expense that would be imposed on this petitioner by an
effective date six months after
[[Page 18091]]
publication and the fact that a six-month deadline is not necessary to
achieve the purpose of Section 3010, EPA believes that this exclusion
should be effective immediately upon final publication. These reasons
also provide a basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon
final publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to
5 USC Sec. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. The effect of this rule is to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. The
reduction is achieved by excluding waste from EPA's lists of hazardous
wastes, thereby enabling the facility to treat its waste as non-
hazardous. This rule does not represent a significant regulatory action
under the Executive Order, and no assessment of costs and benefits is
necessary. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has also exempted
this rule from the requirement for OMB review under Section (6) of
Executive Order 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rule will not have an adverse economic impact on any small
entities since its effect will be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's
hazardous waste regulations and will be limited to one facility.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This regulation, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and record-keeping requirements associated
with this final rule have been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned
OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``UMRA''), Pub. L. 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA
rules, under section 205 of the UMRA EPA must identify and consider
alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA
must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in the
final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development
of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance
with the regulatory requirements.
The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. EPA finds that today's
delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and does not impose any
enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. In addition, today's delisting decision does not
establish any regulatory requirements for small governments and so does
not require a small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 4, 1996.
James R. Berlow,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended
as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX, Part 261 add the following
wastestream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22
Table 2. Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Bethlehem Steel Corporation... Lackawanna, New Ammonia still lime
York. sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste No.
K060) and other
solid waste
generated from
primary metal-making
and coking
operations. This is
a one-time exclusion
for 118,000 cubic
yards of waste
contained in the on-
site landfill
referred to as HWM-
2. This exclusion
was published on
April 24, 1996.
* * * * *
* *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18092]]
[FR Doc. 96-10106 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10094 Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of the Federal Operating Permits Program; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18083-18088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10094]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[AD-FRL-5460-9]
Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of the Federal Operating
Permits Program; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Interim Approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating
Permits Program submitted by the California Air Resources Board on
behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements which mandate
that States develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating
permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain other sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the District's submittal and other supporting
[[Page 18084]]
information used in developing the proposed interim approval including
the Technical Support Document with response to comments are available
for inspection during normal business hours at the following location:
Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, (415) 744-1250,
Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and purpose
A. Introduction
Title V of the Clean Air Act (the Act), and implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 70 require that States develop and submit
operating permits programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA
act to approve or disapprove each program within one year after
receiving the submittal. The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to
section 502 of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which together
outline criteria for approval or disapproval. Where a program
substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA
may grant the program interim approval for a period of up to 2 years.
On November 1, 1995, EPA proposed interim approval of the operating
permits program for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (San Joaquin Valley or District). See 60 FR 55516. The
EPA received comments on the proposal and has summarized its response
to the major comments in this notice and has fully responded to all
comments in the Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying this
rulemaking. The TSD also describes the operating permits program in
greater detail. In this notice, EPA is taking final action to
promulgate interim approval of the operating permits program for San
Joaquin Valley.
In the November 1, 1995 proposal, EPA also proposed approval of the
San Joaquin Valley's Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit
as a revision to San Joaquin Valley portion of the California State
Implementation Plan and under section 112(l) of the Act. In a separate
notice, EPA has taken final action to approve Rule 2530.
II. Final Action and Implications
A. Response to Comments
EPA received comments from four groups during the comment period:
Caufield Enterprises (an independent oil producer in the southern San
Joaquin Valley), the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA),
Chevron, and the San Joaquin Valley District. EPA's response to the
major comments is summarized below. A full response to each comment is
in the TSD.
1. Stationary Source Definition
The District's title V program defines stationary source by
combining elements of part 70's definitions of ``major source'' and
``stationary source.'' The District's definition of stationary source,
which is common to both its title V program and its new source review
program, contains a provision applicable to any facility located
totally within the Western or Central Kern County Oil Fields or the
Fresno County Oil Field that is used for the production of light oil,
heavy oil or gas. This provision states that all sources under common
control or ownership within each field shall be considered a single
stationary source even if they are located on non-contiguous or
adjacent properties. This provision is more stringent than part 70;
however, the section also states that light oil production, heavy oil
production, and gas production shall constitute separate stationary
sources. Part 70's definition of ``major source'' requires aggregating
all emission points that belong to the same Major Group as described in
the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. See Sec. 70.2
``Major source.'' Light oil production, heavy oil production and gas
production are all in the same Major Group. EPA proposed as an interim
approval issue that the District either revise the SIC code exemption
in its definition of stationary source or show that it is as stringent
as part 70.
The District stated that changing the definition of stationary
source from its historic usage in the new source review (NSR) program
would complicate permitting actions under title V. The District also
provided data that few emission units (and few emissions) would be
added to the program compared to the number of the units and emissions
that would be lost from the program if part 70's definition were used
to determine applicability. WSPA and Chevron also raised concerns
regarding changing from the historic NSR definition of stationary
source.
EPA has reviewed the information provided by the San Joaquin
District on the number and type of additional emission units that would
be included should the District change to EPA's definition of major
source. These units are relatively few in number, have insignificant
emissions, are attached to otherwise major sources, and would for the
most part qualify for treatment as insignificant activities or
insignificant emission units. Overall, San Joaquin Valley's definition
of stationary source is neither inconsistent with nor less stringent
than EPA's definition of major source; therefore, EPA is removing the
proposed interim approval issue regarding it.
Caufield Enterprises commented that the District's part 70 program
as proposed is in conflict with the Clean Air Act because both section
502 of the Act and Sec. 70.2 define a major source to be a contiguous
source while San Joaquin Valley's program combines non-contiguous
properties into a single source. The commenter stated that it was
immaterial whether this provision is stricter or less strict than
federal law since it was the intent of Congress to implement the title
V program uniformly throughout the United States and that allowing the
District to use a different definition for stationary source and major
source for title V permitting is inconsistent with this intent.
EPA believes that it is the intent of Congress to require states to
implement operating permit programs that all contain certain minimum
elements. See section 502(b). EPA also believes that Congress did not
intend to bar States from establishing additional permitting
requirements provided that those requirements were not inconsistent
with the Act. See section 506(a).
While it is true that section 501(2) of the Act defines major
source as ``any stationary source (or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and under common control) * * * '',
this definition serves to define the sources Congress, at a minimum,
intended to be included in the program. The definition of major source
in section 501(2) does not define the only sources that a state may
include in its operating permit program. Clearly, states are allowed to
include a broader range of sources in their programs than the Act
nominally requires.
San Joaquin Valley's definition of major source (which encompasses
its definition of stationary source in its NSR program) differs from
the definition of major source in section 501(2) by grouping all
sources within an oil field that are under common control or ownership
regardless of whether the sources are on contiguous or adjacent
properties. This provision of San
[[Page 18085]]
Joaquin's stationary source definition will bring into its part 70
program more sources than EPA's definition. On the other hand, the
provision does not effectively exclude any sources subject to title V
under the federal definition. As a result, the non-contiguous and non-
adjacent requirement in San Joaquin Valley's definition constitutes an
additional permitting requirement that is not inconsistent with the Act
and is allowed by section 506(a) of the Act.
2. Permit Terms for Model General Permits and Model General Permit
Templates
Chevron, WSPA, and the District commented that model general
permits and model general permit templates should not be required to
have permit terms of five years or less as proposed in interim approval
issue 9. All three commenters recommended that these model permits have
indefinite terms and require revision only when an applicable
requirement changes or needs to be added. WSPA and Chevron noted that
if EPA or the District believes that a correction is needed in a model
permit/template then they have the ability to effect such a change and
modify all associated permits.
Title V and part 70 requires all elements of part 70 permits,
whether or not they are based on model permits or permit templates, to
undergo public, affected state, and EPA review at least once every five
years. Rule 2520 sections 11.3.8, 11.7.6 and 11.7.7 limit public and
EPA comment to the applicability of the permit/template to a source and
thus prohibit public or EPA comment on the internal elements of a model
permit/template after that model permit/template is issued. In effect,
these provisions of the Rule bar regular public, affected state, and
EPA review of the conditions and terms of a source's part 70 permit
that are based on a model permit/template. The ability to comment on
the applicability of a model general permit or permit template does not
replace the ability to comment on the internal elements of that permit
because not all issues will be ones of applicability. Hence there is a
need to provide some mechanism to assure regular public, affected
state, and EPA review of the model general permits and permit
templates. Therefore, EPA is retaining this interim approval issue.
In reviewing this issue, EPA did determine that it is not necessary
that the model general permits/permit templates to contain five-year
permit terms but rather that the District's part 70 program provide
some mechanism that requires regular public, affected state, and EPA
review of the internal provisions of each model general permit or
permit template at least once every five years. EPA, therefore, has
revised the interim approval issue.
EPA does not argue with the commenters that EPA has the ability to
reopen model permits/templates when necessary, but this ability does
not replace the requirement for regular public and affected state
review. EPA would also note that regulatory changes are not the sole
reason why model general permits/permit templates may need to be
changed.
3. Permit Shield Provision for General Permits and Permit Templates
Proposed interim approval issue 15 required that Rule 2520 be
revised to state, as required by Sec. 70.6(d), that, notwithstanding
the permit shield provisions, if a source that is operating under a
general permit is later determined not to qualify for the terms and
conditions of that general permit, then the source is subject to
enforcement action for operation without a part 70 permit. The District
declined to revise Rule 2520 to add this language arguing it was
unnecessary because its general permit provisions are more stringent
than part 70. The District noted that any general permit obtained by a
source under Rule 2520 would include qualification criteria and the
applicable requirements, thus any deviation from the general permit
should be treated like any other part 70 permit violation.
EPA agrees that the District's general permit provisions are
different from the provisions in part 70 in that the District's program
gives each source a part 70 permit derived from the model general
permit rather than issuing one permit that applies to multiple sources.
EPA, however, is retaining this interim approval issue.
At issue is not whether a source is complying with the terms of its
permit but rather whether the permit the source has is the correct
permit for that source. A source that applies to use a model general
permit and receives a permit based on that model when it does not
qualify is not substantially different from a source that fails to
apply for and receive any permit because both sources do not have
permits applicable to them. The former source may appear to have a
permit and may appear to comply with some of the terms of that permit,
but, because the permit was not crafted for that source, there is in
fact no valid permit with which to comply. The source should be treated
as operating without a part 70 permit rather than not operating in
compliance with a part 70 permit.
Chevron and WSPA requested clarification that this interim approval
issue does not carry over into the application and use of general
permit templates. The commenters noted that a general permit template
is only a partial coverage for certain emission units. The commenters
also recommended extending this concept to general permits in cases
where the non-applicability represents failure to properly manage
change at the facility, in contrast to a misrepresentation of the
source at the time of permit application.
EPA agrees with the commenters and has clarified the interim
approval issue. If a general permit template is later determined not to
be applicable to the sources then the emission units or the portion of
the facility that was covered by the terms of the general permit
template would be subject to enforcement action for operating without a
title V permit and the balance of the facility, where the permit
remains in force, would not be subject to the enforcement action.
EPA does not believe there is any need to extend this concept to
general permits where the source modifies so as to no longer qualify
for the general permit. EPA interprets the requirement in Sec. 70.6(d)
to apply only to sources that misrepresented their qualifications for a
general permit at the time of initial issuance or renewal.
4. Other Comments
The District addressed each of EPA's 17 proposed interim approval
issues and in most cases stated it would propose language changes to
Rule 2520 to address the interim approval issue. EPA appreciates the
District's responses on these issues. For several interim approval
issues, the District stated that it did not believe Rule revisions were
warranted. These issues are discussed below. Please note that the issue
numbers reflect those in the proposal and not the revised numbering in
this notice.
Interim Approval Issue 9: Clarify minor source applicability. The
District believes that section 2.4 of Rule 2520 clearly applies only to
area sources and that it is not necessary to clarify the sentence in
section 2.4 that ``[o]nly the affected emissions units within the
stationary source shall be subject to part 70 permitting requirements''
applies only to stationary sources that are also area sources. The
District noted that any major source subject to an NSPS would be
subject to title V permitting by its major source status.
EPA agrees with the District that any major source regulated under
an NSPS or section 112 standard would be
[[Page 18086]]
subject to the District's rule under the major source requirement in
section 2.3 of Rule 2520; however, it is also true that such a source
would also be subject to Rule 2520 under the ``subject to an NSPS or
112 standard'' requirement in section 2.4. In fact, it will be common
for sources to be subject to the District's rule on a number of grounds
(e.g., a major source subject to an NSPS). Therefore, the exclusivity
of section 2.4 to area sources is not inherent in the rule. In
addition, section 2.4 of Rule 2520 parallels the language of
Sec. 70.3(a)(3) which reads ``any source, including an area source,
subject to a standard * * *''. EPA does not interpret Sec. 70.3(a)(3)
to apply only to area sources and would not agree that section 2.4
applies only to area sources. EPA is therefore retaining this interim
approval issue.
Interim Approval Issue 10: Review and public notice municipal waste
incinerator permits every five years, even in the event that permit
expiration may be every 12 years. The District noted that
Sec. 70.6(a)(2) does require that the District review permits for
municipal waste incinerators every five years, but it does not require
public notice and comment.
Part 70 does not fully repeat the Act's requirement that title V
permits for municipal waste incinerators be subject to public review
every five years. The requirement is a provision of section 129(e) of
the Act and not of title V. Section 129(e) of the Act requires that all
municipal waste incinerators obtain title V permits and that those
permits may have a permit term of up to 12 years, shall be reviewed
every 5 years, and shall remain in effect until the date of
termination, unless EPA or the permitting authority determines that the
unit is not in compliance with all standards and conditions contained
in the permit. Under section 129(e), such determination shall be made
at regular intervals during the term of the permit, such intervals not
to exceed five years, and only after public comment and public hearing.
Based on the explicit language of section 129(e) requiring public
comment and hearing, EPA is retaining this interim approval issue.
Interim Approval Issue 12: Allow trading of emission increases and
decreases without a case-by-case review to the extent allowed by an
applicable requirement, and not merely those allowed by Rule 2301. The
District commented that District Rule 2301, ``Emission Reduction Credit
Banking'' states that the rule is applicable to all transfers or uses
of emission reduction credits in the San Joaquin Valley, and that the
District does not propose to change this provision. The District also
commented that the permit terms will identify circumstances under which
credits can be transferred without a case-by-case review, that under
these circumstances, the language in Rule 2520 which requires that
emission reduction transfers be consistent with Rule 2301 is
appropriate, and that the District does not propose to change it.
EPA notes that proposed interim approval issue 12 did not address
the part of Rule 2520, section 9.12 that restricts the use of emission
reduction credits. Rather, this interim approval issue addresses the
first provision in section 9.12 that restricted terms and conditions in
a permit for the trading of emission increases and decreases in the
permitted facility to those allowed by Rule 2201. Section 70.6(a)(10)
requires permitting authorities to include terms for emission trading
without case-by-case approvals to the extent applicable requirements
allow them. EPA's interim approval issue is to remove Rule 2520's
restriction to Rule 2201 and expand it to encompass any applicable
requirement, such as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, that allows for
emission trading without case-by-case approval. EPA, therefore, is
retaining this interim approval issue but is clarifying that it does
not affect the emission reduction credit provisions in Rule 2520,
section 9.12.
Interim Approval Issue 13: Require a schedule of compliance be
included in the permit even if the source is in compliance with all
applicable requirements. The District argues, based on language in part
70 and title V, that neither title V nor part 70 requires that each
permit issued contain a schedule of compliance unless the source is in
non-compliance.
The District is correct in stating that Sec. 70.6(c)(3) merely
requires that a permit contain a schedule of compliance consistent with
Sec. 70.5(c)(8); that Sec. 70.5(c)(8) requires a compliance plan be
submitted with the application, part of which is a compliance schedule;
and finally that Sec. 70.5(c)(8)(iii) lists what constitutes a
compliance schedule and that for non-complying source, this is the
``schedule of compliance'' in Sec. 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C).
The District is also correct in stating that section 504 of the Act
requires that ``each permit issued under this title shall include * * *
a schedule of compliance * * *'' However, the District is not correct
in stating that facilities are not required to submit a schedule of
compliance with their applications unless they are out of compliance.
Section 503 clearly requires all permit applications, without regard to
the source's compliance status, to include a ``compliance plan
describing how the source will comply with all applicable requirements
* * *'' and that the ``[c]ompliance plan shall include a schedule of
compliance * * *''.
Part 70 and the Act need to be read with the understanding that the
terms ``compliance schedule'' and ``schedule of compliance'' are
synonymous. With this understanding, it is clear that all sources,
complying and non-complying, must include a schedule of compliance
(i.e., a compliance schedule) in their applications and that all
permits must have schedules of compliance (i.e., compliance schedules)
in them. For complying sources and sources that have future-effective
applicable requirements, the compliance schedule is a simple statement
that the source will continue to comply or will comply in a timely
manner. Only for non-complying sources are there detailed requirements
for the contents of a schedule of compliance. Given the requirements of
the Act and part 70, EPA is retaining this interim approval issue.
B. Interim Approval
The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits
program submitted by the California Air Resources Board on behalf of
the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on July 3
and August 17, 1995, and supplemented on September 6 and 21, 1995. The
District or the State must make the following changes to receive full
approval:
(1) Revise the applicability language in Rule 2520 2.2 and the
definitions of Major Air Toxics Source (Rule 2520 3.18) and Major
Source (Rule 2520 3.19) to be consistent with the Act and part 70 to
cover sources that emit at major source levels.
(2) Limit the exemption for non-major sources in Rule 2520 4.1 so
that it does not exempt non-major sources that EPA determines, upon
promulgation of a section 111 or 112 standard, must obtain title V
permits. Sec. 70.3(b)(2)
(3) Revise Rule 2520 7.1.3.2 to eliminate the requirement that
fugitive emission estimates need only be submitted in the application
if the source is in a source category identified in the major source
definition in 40 CFR part 70.2. See Sec. 70.3(d).
(4) Revise Rule 2520 to provide that unless the District requests
additional information or otherwise notifies the applicant of
incompleteness within 60 days of receipt of an application, the
application shall be deemed complete. See Secs. 70.5(a)(2) and
70.7(a)(4).
[[Page 18087]]
(5) Revise Rule 2520 sections 11.1.4.2 and 11.3.1.1 and Rule 2201
5.3.1.1.1 to include notice ``by other means if necessary to assure
adequate notice to the affected public.'' See Sec. 70.7(h)(1).
(6) Revise Rule 2520's permit issuance procedures to provide for
notifying EPA and affected states in writing of any refusal by the
District to accept all recommendations for the proposed permit that an
affected state submitted during the public/affected state review
period. See Sec. 70.8(b)(2).
(7) Either delete section 11.7.5 in Rule 2520 and section 5.3.1.8.5
in Rule 2201, which purport to limit the grounds upon which EPA may
object to a permit to compliance with applicable requirements, or
revise them to be fully consistent with Sec. 70.8(c).
EPA's authority to object to issuance of permits derives from
section 505(b) of the Act. No state or local agency may restrict
authorities granted EPA under the Clean Air Act; therefore, EPA views
section 11.7.5 of Rule 2520 and Section 5.3.1.8.5 of Rule 2201 as not
binding upon its actions. EPA will exercise its authority to object to
permits consistent with Sec. 70.8(c) and without regard to the
restriction on that authority in San Joaquin's title V program. Should
the District issue a permit to which EPA has objected and the District
has not revised or reissued to meet the objection, EPA will consider
the permit invalid and will require the District to revise and reissue
the proposed permit or will revoke, revise, and reissue the permit
itself. EPA has made these revisions to Rule 2520 an interim approval
issue in order to ensure that the Rule 2520 clearly states EPA's
authority to object to permits.
(8) Revise Rule 2520 2.4 to clarify that the sentence in section
2.4 that ``[o]nly the affected emissions units within the stationary
source shall be subject to part 70 permitting requirements'' applies
only to stationary sources that are also area sources.
(9) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that each model general permit
and model general permit templates will be subject to public, affected
state, and EPA review consistent with initial permit issuance at least
once every 5 years.
(10) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that any permit for a solid
waste incineration unit that has a permit term of more than 5 years
shall be subject to review, including public notice and comment, at
least once every five years. See Sec. 70.6(a)(2).
(11) Revise Rule 2520 13.2.3 to state that the permit shield will
apply only to requirements addressed in the permit. EPA will not
consider a source shielded from an enforcement action for failure to
comply with an applicable requirement if that applicable requirement is
addressed only in the written reviews supporting permit issuance and
not in the permit. Further, EPA will veto any permit that extends the
permit shield to conditions, terms, or findings of non-applicability
that are not included in the permit.
(12) Revise Rule 2520 9.12 to require the permit contain terms and
conditions for the trading of emission increases and decreases in the
permitted facility to the extent that any applicable requirement
provides for such trading without case by case approval. The District
may limit transfers of emission reduction credits in accordance with
District Rules 2201 and 2301. Sec. 70.6(a)(10)
(13) Revise Rule 2520, Section 9.0 (permit content) to include the
Sec. 70.6(c)(3) requirement for schedules of compliance for applicable
requirements for which the source is in compliance or that will become
effective during the permit term. During the interim period, the
District should incorporate compliance schedules, as required by
Sec. 70.6(c)(3), into all issued permits.
(14) Revise Rule 2520 to treat changes made under the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Act and EPA' PSD
regulations in the same manner as ``title I modifications'' as that
term is defined in Rule 2520 and Rule 2201.
(15) Revise Rule 2520 to state that, notwithstanding the permit
shield provisions, if a source that is operating under a general permit
or general permit template is later determined not to qualify for the
terms and conditions of that general permit or template, then the
source is subject to enforcement action for operation without a part 70
permit. For sources operating under a general permit template, if a
source is later determined not to qualify for the template, only the
portion of the facility covered by the template shall be subject to
enforcement action for operation without a part 70 permit. See
Sec. 70.6(d).
(16) Because California State law currently exempts agricultural
production sources from permit requirements, CARB has requested source
category-limited interim approval for all California districts. EPA is
granting source category-limited interim approval to the San Joaquin
program. In order for this program to receive full approval, the Health
and Safety Code must be revised to eliminate the exemption of
agricultural production sources from the requirement to obtain a title
V permit. Once the California statute has been revised, the District
must also revise its permit exemption rules to eliminate any blanket
exemption granted agricultural sources.
This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until May
25, 1998. During this interim approval period, the State is protected
from sanctions for failure to have a program, and EPA is not obligated
to promulgate a Federal permits program in the District. Permits issued
under a program with interim approval have full standing with respect
to Part 70, and the one-year time period for submittal of permit
applications by subject sources begins upon the effective date of
interim approval, as does the three-year time period for processing the
initial permit applications.
If the District fails to submit a complete program through the
State for full approval by November 24, 1997, EPA will start an 18-
month clock for mandatory sanctions. If the District fails to submit a
complete program before the expiration of that 18-month period, EPA
would impose sanctions. If EPA disapproves the District's corrective
program, and has not granted full approval within 18 months after the
disapproval, then EPA must impose mandatory sanctions. In both cases,
if the District has not come into compliance within 6 months after EPA
applies the first sanction, a second sanction is required. In addition,
discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted any time after
the end of the interim approval period. If the EPA has not granted full
approval to the District program by May 25, 1998, EPA must promulgate,
administer, and enforce a Federal permits program for San Joaquin
Valley.
C. District Program Implementing Section 112(g)
EPA is approving the use of San Joaquin Valley's preconstruction
review program (Rule 2201) as a mechanism to implement section 112(g)
during the transition period between promulgation of EPA's section
112(g) rule and adoption by San Joaquin Valley of rules specifically
designed to implement section 112(g). EPA is limiting the duration of
this approval to 18 months following promulgation by EPA of the section
112(g) rule.
D. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated
Requirements for part 70 program approval, specified in 40 CFR
70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a
program for delegation of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA
as they apply to part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5)
[[Page 18088]]
requires that the District's program contain adequate authorities,
adequate resources for implementation, and an expeditious compliance
schedule, which are also requirements under part 70. Therefore, EPA is
also promulgating approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of
San Joaquin Valley's program for receiving delegation of section 112
standards that are unchanged from the federal standards as promulgated.
This program for delegations applies to both existing and future
standards but is limited to sources covered by the part 70 program.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
Copies of the District's submittal and other information relied
upon for the final interim approval, including all comments received on
the proposal and EPA's responses to those comments, are contained in
docket number CA-SJV-95-001 maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The
docket is available for public inspection at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this document.
B. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
Executive Order 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA's action under section 502 of the Act does not create any
new requirements but simply addresses the operating permits program
developed and submitted by the San Joaquin Valley District to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 70. EPA evaluated the impact on small
businesses of the title V operating permit program as part of its
promulgation of part 70 and determined that operating permit programs
required by part 70 would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business and no Regulatory Flexibility Act
analysis was necessary.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today does
not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector and therefore, no budgetary
impact statement is necessary.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental Protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 10, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 70--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (y) to the
entry for California to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs
* * * * *
California
* * * * *
(y) San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD (complete submittal received on
July 5 and August 18, 1995); interim approval effective on May 24,
1996; interim approval expires May 25, 1998.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-10094 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10038 Candidate Debates and News Stories
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18049-18052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10038]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
11 CFR Parts 100, 110 and 114
[Notice 1996-11]
Candidate Debates and News Stories
AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.
ACTION: Final rule and transmittal of regulations to Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission is issuing revised regulations
governing candidate debates and new stories produced by cable
television organizations. These regulations implement the provisions of
the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) which exempt news stories from
the definition of expenditure under certain conditions. The revisions
indicate that cable television programmers, producers and operators may
cover or stage candidate debates in the same manner as broadcast and
print news media. The rules also restate Commission policy that news
organizations may not stage candidate debates if they are owned or
controlled by any political party, political committee or candidate.
DATES: Further action, including the publication of a document in the
Federal Register announcing an effective date, will be taken after
these regulations have been before Congress for 30 legislative days
pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 438(d).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Susan E. Propper, Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Rosemary C.
Smith, Senior Attorney, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202)
219-3690 or (800) 424-9530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is publishing today the final
text of revisions to its regulations at 11 CFR 100.7(b)(2),
100.8(b)(2), 110.13 and 114.4(f) regarding news stories and candidate
debates produced by cable television operators, programmers and
producers. The revised rules also address candidate debates sponsored
by news organizations owned or controlled by candidates, political
parties and political committees. These provisions implement 2 U.S.C.
431(9) and 441b, provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971, as amended (the Act or FECA), 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.
On February 1, 1996, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in which it sought comments on proposed revisions to
these regulations. 61 FR 3621 (Feb. 1, 1996). Four written comments
were received from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
(Turner), and the National Cable Television Association, Inc. (NCTA). A
public hearing on these changes was scheduled for March 20, 1996. The
hearing was subsequently canceled when the Commission received no
requests to testify.
Section 438(d) of Title 2, United States Code, requires that any
rules or regulations prescribed by the Commission to carry out the
provisions of Title 2 of the United States Code be transmitted to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate
30 legislative days before they are finally promulgated. These
regulations were transmitted to Congress on April 18, 1996.
Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 100.7(b)(2), Sec. 100.8(b)(2),
Sec. 110.13, and Sec. 114.4(f)
The FECA generally prohibits corporations from making contributions
or expenditures in connection with any election. 2 U.S.C. 441b.
However, the definition of ``expenditure'' in section 431(9) indicates
that news stories, commentaries, and editorials distributed through the
facilities of any broadcast station, newspaper, magazine, or other
periodical publication are not considered to be expenditures unless the
facilities are owned or controlled by a political party, political
committee, or candidate. 2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(i). This statutory
exemption forms the basis for the Commission's long-standing
regulations at 11 CFR 100.7(b)(2) and 100.8(b)(2) exempting such
communications from the definitions of contribution and expenditure.
Section 431(9) is also the basis underlying sections 110.13 and
114.4(f), which permit broadcasters and bona fide print media to stage
candidate debates under certain conditions.
The Commission has decided to expand the types of media entities
that may stage candidate debates under sections 110.13 and 114.4 to
include cable television operators, programmers and producers. Hence,
revised sections 110.13(a)(2) and 114.4(f) allows these types of cable
organizations to stage debates under the same terms and conditions as
other media organizations such as broadcasters, and bona fide print
media organizations. New language in sections 110.13, 100.7(b)(2) and
100.8(b)(2) also permits cable organizations, acting in their capacity
as news media, to cover or carry candidate debates staged by other
groups. Examples of the types of programming that the Federal
Communications Commission considers to be bona fide newscasts and news
interview programs are provided in The Law of Political Broadcasting
and Cablecasting: A Political Primer, 1984 ed., Federal Communications
Commission, at p. 1994-99.
The revised rules are consistent with the intent of Congress not
``to limit or burden in any way the first amendment freedoms of the
press * * *.'' H.R. Rep. No. 93-1239, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. at 4 (1974).
In Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications
Commission, ______ U.S. ______, 114 S.
[[Page 18050]]
Ct. 2445, 2456 (1994), the Supreme Court recognized that cable
operators and cable programmers ``engage in and transmit speech, and
they are entitled to the protection of the speech and press provisions
of the First Amendment.''
The 1974 legislative history of the FECA also indicates that in
exempting news stories from the definition of ``expenditure,'' Congress
intended to assure ``the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV
networks, and other media to cover and comment on political
campaigns.'' H.R. Rep. No. 93-1239, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. at 4 (1974).
Although the cable television industry was much less developed when
Congress express this intent, it is reasonable to conclude that cable
operators, programmers and producers, when operating in their capacity
as news producers and distributors, would be precisely the type of
``other media'' appropriately included within this exemption. For these
reasons, the Commission has decided to allow cable operators,
programmers and producers to act as debate sponsors.
The Internal Revenue Service found no conflict with the Internal
Revenue Code or regulations thereunder. The Federal Communications
Commission stated that the proposed amendments regarding candidate
debates and news stories are not inconsistent with the FCC's policies
in implementing the Communications Act of 1934, and appear to
complement and further the FCC's regulatory scheme and goals. Two other
commenters supported the Commission's efforts to confirm that the
FECA's exemption applies to candidate debates, news, commentary and
editorial programming produced and distributed by cable news
organizations. These commenters stated they felt any other course of
action would present serious Constitutional problems under the First
Amendment. They also argued that the Commission's interpretation is
consistent with the statutory framework established by Congress when it
enacted the 1974 Amendments to the FECA, and would serve the public
interest.
The NPRM sought comments on whether there are distinctions between
cable operators, programmers and producers that should be considered in
determining which of these types of organizations may stage candidate
debates, and in determining which of these organizations are bona fide
news organizations entitled to the press exemption. It also asked if
there other types of cable new organizations that should be included as
debate sponsors. One commenter stated that the Commission should
confirm that the FECA's exemption applies to cable operators and cable
networks as well as to independent producers of news, commentary and
editorials they carry. Under the new regulations, the exemption applies
to each of these entities. The commenter also urged the Commission to
expand the list of permissible debate sponsors and bona fide news media
to include regional, state and national trade associations whose
members are cable operators and programmers. The role of trade
associations was not addressed in the NPRM and is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking.
The revised rules are also consistent with Advisory Opinion 1982-
44, in which the Commission concluded that the press exemption
permitted Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. to donate free cable cast
time to the Republican and Democratic National Committees without
making a prohibited corporate contribution. The cablecast programming
on ``super satellite'' television station, WTBS in Atlanta, Georgia,
was to be provided to a network of cable system operators. The
Commission stated inter alia that ``the distribution of free time to
both political parties is within the broadcaster's legitimate broadcast
function and, therefore, within the purview of the press exemption.''
AO 1982-44.
The courts have examined the application of the press exemption in
section 431(9)(B)(i) on several occasions. See e.g., Readers Digest
Ass'n v. FEC, 509 F. Supp. 1210 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); FEC v. Phillips
Publishing Company, Inc., 517 F. Supp. 1308 (D.D.C. 1981); and Federal
Election Commission v. Multimedia Cablevision, Inc., Civ. Action No.
94-1520-MLB, slip op. (D. Kan. Aug. 15, 1995). In Readers Digest, the
court articulated a two part test ``on which the exemption turns:
whether the press entity is owned by the political party or candidate
and whether the press entity was acting as a press entity in making the
distribution complained of. ``Readers Digest, at p. 1215. The first
prong is discussed more fully below. With regard to the second prong,
the court stated that ``the statute would seem to exempt only those
kinds of distribution that fall broadly within the press entity's
legitimate press function.'' Id. at 1214. The Commission believes a
cable operator, producer or programmer can satisfy this standard if it
follows the same guidelines as other news media follow when they stage
candidate debates. For example, it must invite at least two candidates
and refrain from promoting or advancing one over the other(s).
The Commission is also adding language to sections 100.7(b)(2) and
100.8(b)(2) indicating that the news story exception in 2 U.S.C. 431(9)
allows cable operators, producers and programmers to exercise
legitimate press functions by covering or carrying news stories,
commentaries and editorials in accordance with the same guidelines that
apply to the print or broadcast media. For example, they are subject to
the same provisions regarding ownership by candidates and political
parties as are broadcasters or print media. The public comments
regarding these changes are summarized above.
The approach taken in the new rules regarding cable television
entities avoids conflict with the FCC's application of the equal
opportunity requirements under the Communications Act of 1934. Section
315(a) of the Communications Act requires that broadcast station
licensees, including cable television operators, who permit any legally
qualified candidate to use a broadcasting station, must afford equal
opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use
of that broadcasting station. 47 U.S.C. 315(a). However, the equal
opportunity requirement is not triggered if the broadcasting station
airs a bona fide newscast, bona fide news interview, bona fide news
documentary or on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including
political conventions). 47 U.S.C. 315(a)(1)-(4). In 1975, the FCC
decided that broadcasts of debates between political candidates would
be exempt from the equal opportunities requirement as on-the-spot
coverage of bona fide news events where, inter ailia, the broadcaster
exercised a reasonable, good faith judgment that it was newsworthy, and
not for the purpose of giving political advantage to any candidate. See
The Law of Political Broadcasting and Cablecasting: A Political Primer,
1984 ed., Federal Communications Commission, at p. 1502. This ruling
was expanded in 1983 to permit broadcaster-sponsorship of candidate
debates. Id. Similarly, in 1992, the FCC ruled that independently
produced bona fide news interview programs qualify for exemption from
the equal opportunities requirement of the Communications Act. In
Matter of Request for Declaratory Ruling That Independently Produced
Bona Fide News Interview Programs Qualify for the Equal Opportunities
Exemption Provided in Section 315(a)(2) of the Communications Act, FCC
92-288 (July 15, 1992).
The third change in the revised rules is the addition of language
in paragraph (a)(2) of section 110.13 regarding ownership of
organizations staging candidate debates. Broadcast, cable and
[[Page 18051]]
print media organizations may not stage candidate debates if they are
owned or controlled by a political party, political committee or
candidate. This policy was not stated in the previous candidate debate
rules, although it was included in the 1979 Explanation and
Justification for those rules. See 44 F.R. 76735 (December 27, 1979).
It is based on 2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(i), which specifies that the news
story exemption does not apply to media entities that are owned or
controlled by a political party, political committee or candidate.
Please note that this new language applies only to media corporations,
and thus does not change the rules in 11 CFR 110.13 regarding candidate
debates staged by nonprofit corporations described in section 501(c)(3)
or (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. None of the commenters
specifically addressed this change in the regulations.
Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) [Regulatory
Flexibility Act]
The attached final rules will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The basis for this certification is that any small entities affected
are already required to comply with the requirements of the Act in
these areas.
List of Subjects
11 CFR Part 100
Elections.
11 CFR Part 110
Campaign funds, Political candidates, Political committees and
parties.
11 CFR Part 114
Business and industry, Elections, Labor.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Subchapter A, Chapter I of
Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 100--SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS (2 U.S.C. 431)
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431, 438(a)(8)
2. Part 100 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) of section
100.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 100.7 Contribution (2 U.S.C. 431(8)).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Any cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story,
commentary, or editorial by any broadcasting station (including a cable
television operator, programmer or producer), newspaper, magazine, or
other periodical publication is not a contribution unless the facility
is owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or
candidate, in which case the costs for a news story (i) which
represents a bona fide news account communicated in a publication of
general circulation or on a licensed broadcasting facility, and (ii)
which is part of a general pattern of campaign-related news accounts
which give reasonably equal coverage to all opposing candidates in the
circulation or listening area, is not a contribution.
* * * * *
3. Part 100 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) of section
100.8 to read as follows:
Sec. 100.8 Expenditure (2 U.S.C. 431(9)).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Any cost incurred in covering or carrying a new story,
commentary, or editorial by any broadcasting station (including a cable
television operator, programmer or producer), newspaper, magazine, or
other periodical publication is not an expenditure unless the facility
is owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or
candidate, in which case the costs for a news story (i) which
represents a bona fide news account communicated in a publication of
general circulation or on a licensed broadcasting facility, and (ii)
which is part of a general pattern of campaign-related news account
which give reasonably equal coverage to all opposing candidates in the
circulation or listening area, is not an expenditure.
* * * * *
PART 110--CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS
4. The authority citation for Part 110 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(8), 431(9), 432(c)(2), 437d(a)(8),
438(a)(8), 441a, 441b, 441d, 441e, 441f, 441g and 441h.
5. Part 110 is amended by revising section 110.13 to read as
follows:
Sec. 110.13 Candidate debates.
(a) Staging organizations. (1) Nonprofit organizations described in
26 U.S.C. 501 (c)(3) or (c)(4) and which do not endorse, support, or
oppose political candidates or political parties may stage candidate
debates in accordance with this section and 11 CFR 114.4(f).
(2) Broadcasters (including a cable television operator, programmer
or producer), bona fide newspapers, magazines and other periodical
publications may stage candidate debates in accordance with this
section and 11 CFR 114.4(f), provided that they are owned or controlled
by a political party, political committee or candidate. In addition,
broadcasters (including a cable television operator, programmer or
producer), bona fide newspapers, magazines and other periodical
publications, acting as press entities, may also cover or carry
candidate debates in accordance with 11 CFR 100.7 and 100.8.
(b) Debate structure. The structure of debates staged in accordance
with this section and 11 CFR 114.4(f) is left to the discretion of the
staging organizations(s), provided that:
(1) Such debates include at least two candidates; and
(2) The staging organization(s) does not structure the debates to
promote or advance one candidate over another.
(c) Criteria for candidate selection. For all debates, staging
organization(s) must use pre-established objective criteria to
determine which candidates may participate in a debate. For general
election debates, staging organizations(s) shall not use nomination by
a particular political party as the sole objective criterion to
determine whether to include a candidate in a debate. For debates held
prior to a primary election, caucus or convention, staging
organizations may restrict candidate participation to candidates
seeking the nomination of one party, and need not stage a debate for
candidates seeking the nomination of any other political party or
independent candidates.
PART 114--CORPORATE AND LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTIVITY
6. The authority citation for Part 114 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B), 431(9)(B), 432, 437d(a)(8),
438(a)(8), and 441b.
7. Part 114 is amended by revising paragraph (f) of section 114.4.
to read as follows:
Sec. 114.4 Disbursements for communications beyond the restricted
class in connection with a Federal election.
* * * * *
(f) Candidate debates.
(1) A nonprofit organization described in 11 CFR 110.13(a)(1) may
use its own funds and may accept funds donated by corporations or labor
organizations under paragraph (f)(3) of this section to defray costs
incurred in staging candidate debates held in accordance with 11 CFR
110.13.
(2) A broadcaster (including a cable television operator,
programmer or producer), bona fide newspaper,
[[Page 18052]]
magazine or other periodical publication may use its own funds to
defray costs incurred in staging public candidate debates held in
accordance with 11 CFR 110.13.
(3) A corporation or labor organization may donate funds to
nonprofit organizations qualified under 11 CFR 110.13(a)(1) to stage
candidate debates held in accordance with 11 CFR 110.13 and 114.4(f).
* * * * *
Dated: April 18, 1996.
Lee Ann Elliott,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 96-10038 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10019 New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18081-18082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10019]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 558
New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect the change of sponsor for 33 approved new
animal drug applications (NADA's) from American Cyanamid Co. to
Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. In addition, the agency is amending its
regulations to correct some errors. This action is being taken to
clarify and improve the accuracy of the animal drug regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. McKay, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: American Cyanamid Co., Berdan Ave., Wayne,
NJ 07470, has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and
all rights and interests in, the following approved NADA's to Hoffmann-
La Roche, Inc., Nutley, NJ 07110-1199.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NADA no. Ingredients
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33-950.................................... Sulfamerazine.
35-688................................... Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex, Penicillin G
Procaine, Sulfamethazine
35-805.................................... Chlortetracycline
Hydrochloride,
Sulfamethazine.
36-361.................................... Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex, Amprolium ,
Ethopabate, Sodium Sulfate.
41-647.................................... Sulfamethazine,
Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.-
41-648.................................... Sulfamethazine,
Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.
41-649................................... Sulfamethazine,
Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.
41-650.................................... Sulfamethazine,
Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.
41-651.................................... Sulfamethazine,
Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.
41-652.................................... Sulfamethazine,
Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.
41-653.................................... Sulfamethazine,
Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.
41-654.................................... Sulfamethazine,
Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.
46-920.................................... Bacitracin zinc.
48-486.................................... Robenidine Hydrochloride.
48-761.................................... Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.
48-762.................................... Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.
48-763.................................... Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex.
55-040.................................... Chlortetracycline
Hydrochloride.
92-507.................................... Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex, Robenidine
Hydrochloride.
93-372.................................... Chlortetracycline
Hydrochloride.
95-546.................................... Robenidine Hydrochloride,
Roxarsone.
96-933.................................... Bacitracin zinc, Robenidine
Hydrochloride.
97-085.................................... Robenidine Hydrochloride,
Bacitracin MD.
105-758................................... Bacitracin zinc, Amprolium,
Ethopabate, Roxarsone.
114-794................................... Bacitracin zinc, Amprolium,
Ethopabate.
121-553................................... Monensin Sodium,
Chlortetracycline
Hydrochloride.
123-154................................... Monensin Sodium, Bacitracin
ZN, Roxarsone.
136-484................................... Bacitracin zinc, Carbasone.
139-075................................... Maduramicin ammonium.
139-190................................... Bacitracin zinc,
Salinomycin, Sodium
Roxarsone.
139-235................................... Bacitracin zinc,
Salinomycin, Sodium
Roxarsone.
140-859................................... Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex, Salinomycin
Sodium.
140-867................................... Chlortetracycline Calcium
Complex, Roxarsone,
Salinomycin Sodium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in part 558 (21
CFR part 558) to reflect the change of sponsor. FDA is also correcting
some errors that have been incorporated into the agency's codified
regulations. The errors in the regulations are as follows:
In Sec. 558.95(b)(1)(xiii)(b) the reference to the limitations
cited in (e)(1)(vii)(b) is incorrect; the correct cite is ``paragraph
(b)(1)(vii)(b) of this section''. In Sec. 558.355(b)(9) the cited
reference ``paragraphs (f)(1)(xv), (xvi), and (xvii)'' incorrectly
listed the sponsor, ``(xvii)'' should refer to sponsor 012799. The
agency is correcting this error by removing ``(xvii)'' from
Sec. 558.355(b)(9) and adding sponsor 012799 to Sec. 558.355(b)(10).
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is
amended as follows:
PART 558--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 18082]]
Authority: Secs. 512, 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b, 371).
Sec. 558.58 [Amended]
2. Section 558.58 Amprolium and ethopabate is amended in the table
in paragraph (d)(1), in the entry for (iii), under the ``Limitations''
and the ``Sponsor'' columns by removing ``010042'' wherever it appears
and adding in its place ``000004''.
Sec. 558.78 [Amended]
3. Section 558.78 Bacitracin zinc is amended in paragraph (a)(2),
and in the table in paragraph (d)(1) in the entries for (i), (ii), (v),
and (vi) under the ``Sponsor'' column, and in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) by
removing ``010042'' and adding in its place ``000004''.
Sec. 558.95 [Amended]
4. Section 558.95 Bambermycins is amended in paragraph
(b)(1)(xiii)(b) by removing ``(e)(1)(vii)(b)'' and adding in its place
``(b)(1)(vii)(b)''.
Sec. 558.120 [Amended]
5. Section 558.120 Carbarsone (not U.S.P.) is amended in paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(b) by removing ``010042'' and adding in its place
``000004''.
Sec. 558.128 [Amended]
6. Section 558.128 Chlortetracycline is amended in paragraph (a) by
removing ``010042'' and adding in its place ``000004''.
Sec. 558.145 [Amended]
7. Section 558.145 Chlortetracycline, procaine penicillin, and
sulfamethazine is amended in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) by removing
``010042'' and adding in its place ``000004''.
Sec. 558.340 [Amended]
8. Section 558.340 Maduramicin ammonium is amended in paragraph (a)
by removing ``010042'' and adding in its place ``000004''.
Sec. 558.355 [Amended]
9. Section 558.355 is amended in paragraphs (b)(8), (b)(9),
(f)(1)(iv)(b), (f)(1)(v)(b), (f)(1)(xiv)(b), (f)(1)(xv)(b), and
(f)(1)(xvi)(b) by removing ``010042'' and adding in its place
``000004'', in paragraph (b)(9) by removing ``, (xvi), and (xvii)'' and
adding in its place ``and (xvi)'', and by adding paragraph (b)(10) to
read as follows:
Sec. 558.355 Monensin.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(10) To 012799: 45 and 60 grams per pound, as monensin sodium,
paragraph (f)(1)(xvii) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 558.515 [Amended]
10. Section 558.515 Robenidine hydrochloride is amended in
paragraphs (a), (d)(1)(iii)(b), (d)(1)(iv)(b), and (d)(1)(v)(b) by
removing ``010042'' and adding in its place ``000004'' and in paragraph
(d)(1)(vi)(b) by removing ``No. 011716'' and adding in its place ``Nos.
000004 and 011716''.
Sec. 558.550 [Amended]
11. Section 558.550 Salinomycin is amended in paragraphs
(b)(1)(vii)(c), (b)(1)(ix)(c), (b)(1)(xv)(c), and (b)(1)(xvi)(c) by
removing ``010042'' and adding in its place ``000004''.
Sec. 558.582 [Amended]
12. Section 558.582 Sulfamerazine is amended in paragraph (a) by
removing ``010042'' and adding in its place ``000004''.
Dated: April 4, 1996.
Robert C. Livingston,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-10019 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10017 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18069-18070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10017]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 28534; Amdt. No. 1723]
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at
certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the
adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in
the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new
navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air
traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight
operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
DATES: An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory
provisions.
Incorporation by reference--approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
For Examination--
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
For Purchase--Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.
By Subscription--Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks,
are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical Programs Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97)
[[Page 18070]]
establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is
contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by
reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and
Sec. 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable
FAA Forms are identified as FAA Form 8260-5. Materials incorporated by
reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR
(and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs.
This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure
identification and the amendment number.
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each
separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. The SIAPs contained in
this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the United States
Standard for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPS). In
developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports.
The FAA has determined through testing that current non-localizer
type, non-precision instrument approaches developed using the TERPS
criteria can be flown by aircraft equipped with Global Positioning
System (GPS) equipment. In consideration of the above, the applicable
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) will be altered to
include ``or GPS'' in the title without otherwise reviewing or
modifying the procedure. (Once a stand alone GPS procedure is
developed, the procedure title will be altered to remove ``or GPS''
from these non-localizer, non-precision instrument approach procedure
titles.) Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public
procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for
making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
Issued in Washington, DC on April 5, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as
follows:
PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
Secs. 97.23, 97.27, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]
By amending: Sec. 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec. 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec. 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec. 97.35
COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:
* * * Effective June 20, 1996
Winfield/Arkansas City, KS, Strother Field, NDB or GPS RWY 35, Amdt
3A CANCELLED
Winfield/Arkansas City, KS, Strother Field, NDB RWY 35, Amdt 3A
Farmington, MO, Farmington Regional, NDB or GPS RWY 2, Amdt 2A
CANCELLED
Farmington, MO, Farmington Regional, NDB RWY 2, Amdt 2A
Roosevelt, UT, Roosevelt Muni, RNAV or GPS RWY 25, Amdt 1A CANCELLED
Roosevelt, UT, Roosevelt Muni, RNAV RWY 25, Amdt 1A
Renton, WA, Renton Muni, NDB or GPS RWY 15, Amdt. 2 CANCELLED
Renton, WA, Renton Muni, NDB RWY 15, Amdt. 2
[FR Doc. 96-10017 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10016 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18068-18069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10016]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 28527; Amdt. No. 1721]
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at
certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of
changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the
commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new
obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are
designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace
and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at
the affected airports.
DATES: An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory
provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
For Examination--
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which affected airport
is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
For Purchase--Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.
By Subscription--Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks,
are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical Programs Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or
revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete
regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA
Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC) Permanent (P)
Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) which are incorporated by reference in the
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and Sec. 97.20 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Materials incorporated by reference
are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction of charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR
(and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs.
This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure
identification and the amendment number.
The Rule
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For
safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment
incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the
following FDC/P NOTAM for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some
previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration
as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective
FDC/T NOTAMs have been cancelled.
The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are
based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal
Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart
changes to SIAPs by FDC/P NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to
only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All
SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in
a National Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need
for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less
than 30 days.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate
relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.
Conclusion
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves and
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
Issued in Washington, DC on April 5, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking
[[Page 18069]]
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the
dates specified, as follows:
PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
Secs. 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]
By amending: Sec. 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec. 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec. 97.27
NDB, NDB/DME; Sec. 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec. 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec. 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec. 97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, identified as follows:
* * * Effective Upon Publication
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDC date State City Airport FDC No. SIAP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03/21/96............. CA Chico............... Chico Muni.......... FDC 6/1785 VOR/DME or GPS RWY 31R ORIG...
03/22/96............. FL Melbourne........... Melbourne Intl...... FDC 6/1802 LOC BC RWY 27L AMDT 8B...
03/22/96............. FL Melbourne........... Melbourne Intl...... FDC 6/1803 VOR or GPS RWY 27L AMDT 11A...
03/22/96............. OH Oxford.............. Miami University.... FDC 6/1806 NDB or GPS RWY 4 AMDT 9...
03/25/96............. IA Estherville......... Estherville Muni.... FDC 6/1841 VOR or GPS RWY 16, AMDT 4...
03/25/96............. IA Estherville......... Estherville Muni.... FDC 6/1842 VOR RWY 34, AMDT 6...
03/25/96............. IA Estherville......... Estherville Muni.... FDC 6/1843 NDB or GPS RWY 34, ORIG...
03/25/96............. KY Louisville.......... Louisville Intl- FDC 6/1839 NDB or GPS RWY 29, AMDT 19...
Standiford Field. This corrects NOTAM in TL96-8.
03/25/96............. OK Boise City.......... Boise City.......... FDC 6/1838 NDB or GPS-A, AMDT 1...
03/25/96............. OK Tulsa............... Tulsa Intl.......... FDC 6/1837 ILS RWY 36R, AMDT 28; ILS RWY 36R CAT II,
AMDT 28...
03/26/96............. TX Dalhart............. Dalhart Muni........ FDC 6/1859 VOR or GPS RWY 17, AMDT 12...
03/26/96............. TX Dalhart............. Dalhart Muni........ FDC 6/1860 VOR/DME or GPS RWY 34, AMDT 2...
03/26/96............. TX Mesquite............ Mesquite Metro...... FDC 6/1862 ILS RWY 17, ORIG...
03/29/96............. IN Indianapolis........ Greenwood Muni...... FDC 6/1933 NDB or GPS RWY 1 AMDT 2A...
03/29/96............. NM Ruidoso............. Sierra Blanca FDC 6/1934 LOC/DME RWY 24 ORIG...
Regional.
03/29/96............. NM Ruidoso............. Sierra Blanca FDC 6/1935 NDB RWY 24 AMDT 1...
Regional.
03/29/96............. OH Chillicothe......... Ross County......... FDC 6/1931 VOR RWY 23 AMDT 3...
03/29/96............. OH Chillicothe......... Ross County......... FDC 6/1932 NDB RWY 23 AMDT 7...
03/29/96............. OK Ada................. Ada Muni............ FDC 6/1925 VOR/DME-A ORIG...
03/29/96............. UT Salt Lake City...... Salt Lake City Intl. FDC 6/1930 ILS/DME RWY 34R AMDT 1A...
04/02/96............. LA Leesville........... Leesville........... FDC 6/1985 NDB or GPS RWY 35 ORIG...
04/03/96............. OK Pauls Valley........ Pauls Valley Muni... FDC 6/2009 NDB RWY 35 ORIG...
04/03/96............. WY Sheridan............ Sheridan Co......... FDC 6/2008 ILS/DME RWY 32, ORIG...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-10016 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10015 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18066-18068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10015]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 28528; Amdt. No. 1722]
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at
certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the
adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in
the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new
navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air
traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight
operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
DATES: An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory
provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
For Examination--
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
For Purchase--Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.
By Subscription--Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks,
are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical Programs Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8277.
[[Page 18067]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or
revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete
regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and Sec. 97.20 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms
8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are
available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR
(and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs.
This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure
identification and the amendment number.
The Rule
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each
separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may
have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may
require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining
SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is
provided.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Approach Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS
criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the
affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship
between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and
contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause
exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 5, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as
follows:
PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; and 14
CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
Secs. 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]
By amending: Sec. 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec. 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec. 97.27
NDB, NDB/DME; Sec. 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec. 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec. 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec. 97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, identified as follows:
* * *Effective April 25, 1996
Sioux City, IA, Sioux Gateway, VOR/DME RNAV RWY 17, Orig
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, NDB RWY 35, Orig
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, ILS RWY 35, Orig
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, NDB or GPS RWY 17, Amdt 1,
CANCELLED
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, NDB or GPS RWY 35, Amdt 8,
CANCELLED
Kaiser/Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C. Fine Memorial, GPS RWY 21, Orig
Victoria, TX, Victoria Regional, ILS RWY 12L, Amdt 9
* * *Effective May 23, 1996
Cambridge, OH, Cambridge Muni, LOC/DME RWY 22, Orig
Hamilton, TX, Hamilton Muni, NDB RWY 36, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
Hamilton, TX, Hamilton Muni, NDB RWY 36, Orig
* * *Effective June 20, 1996
Auburn, CA, Auburn Muni, GPS RWY 7, Orig
Vacaville, CA, Nut Tree, GPS RWY 20, Orig
Hailey, ID, Friedman Memorial, GPS RWY 31, Orig
Abilene, KS, Abilene Muni, GPS RWY 35, Orig
Winfield/Arkansas City, KS, Strother Field, GPS RWY 35, Orig
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, ILS RWY 27, Amdt 1
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, ILS RWY 33L, Amdt 1
Roosevelt, UT, Roosevelt Muni, GPS RWY 25, Orig
Tooele, UT, Bolinder Field-Tooele Valley, GPS RWY 16, Orig
Morrisville, VT, Morrisville-Stowe State, GPS RWY 19, Orig
The FAA published an amendment in Docket No. 28447, Amdt. No. 1707
to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Vol 61, No. 23, Page
3796, dated February 2, 1996, Section 97.23 effective February 29,
1996, which is amended as follows:
Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C. Fine Memorial, GPS RWY 21, Orig is amended to
read:
Kaiser/Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C. Fine Memorial, GPS RWY 21, Orig
The FAA published an amendment in Docket No. 28475, Amdt. No. 1712
to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Vol 61, FR No. 41, Page
7699, dated February 29, 1996, Section 97.25 effective April 25, 1996,
which is amended as follows:
Colorado Springs, CO, City of Colorado Springs Muni, GPS RWY 35L,
Orig. is hereby rescinded.
The FAA published an amendment in Docket No. 28491, Amdt. No. 1717
to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Vol 61, FR No. 53, Page
10889, dated March 18, 1996, Section 97.27 effective April 25, 1996,
which is amended as follows:
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, NDB RWY 35, Amdt 8, CANCELLED
is amended to read:
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, NDB or GPS RWY 35, Amdt 8,
CANCELLED
[[Page 18068]]
The FAA published an amendment in Docket No. 28508, Amdt. No. 1718
to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, Vol 61, No. 62, Page
14018, dated March 29, 1996, Section 97.27 effective April 25, 1996,
which is amended as follows:
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 1, CANCELLED
is amended to read:
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, NDB or GPS RWY 17, Amdt,
CANCELLED
[FR Doc. 96-10015 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10014 IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18065-18066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10014]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 95
[Docket No. 28525; Amdt. No. 394]
IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required
IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for
certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a
minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This
regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace
[[Page 18066]]
System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in
the affected areas.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, February 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical
Programs Division, Flight Standards Service Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20591;
telephone: (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 95 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a
specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover
points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as
prescribed in part 95.
The Rule
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the
prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid
coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of
frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the
need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and
operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to
published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In
addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this
amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication
date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the
user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those
considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between
these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice
and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable
and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for
making the amendment effective in less than 30 days. The FAA has
determined that this regulation only involves an established body of
technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Issued in Washington, D.C. on January 26, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC.
1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, and 49 U.S.C. 106(g) (Revised
Pub. L. 97-449, January 12, 1983); and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows:
Revisions to Minimum Enroute IFR Altitudes and Changeover Point
[Amendment 394 Effective Date, February 29, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To MEA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 95.1001 Direct Routes-U.S. 95.48 Green--Federal Airway 8 Is Amended To Read in Part
Dutch Harbor, AK NDB/DME,......................... ELFEE, AK NDB NDB................................. 9000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-10014 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10013 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Stevensville, MD
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10013]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AEA-06]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Stevensville, MD
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Stevensville, MD.
The development of a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 11 at Bay Bridge
Airport has made this action necessary. The intended effect of this
action is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at Bay Bridge Airport.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Frances T. Jordan., Airspace Specialist, System Management Branch,
AEA-530, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region, Federal Aviation
Administration, Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy International
Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430, telephone: (718) 553-4521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On December 18, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 17 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing a Class E
airspace area at Bay Bridge Airport, Stevensville, MD (60 FR 65044).
The development of a GPS SIAP at Bay Bridge Airport has made this
action necessary.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C,
dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes a Class E airspace area at Stevensville, MD.
The development of a GPS SIAP at Bay Bridge Airport has made this
action necessary. The intended effect of this action is to provide
adequate Class E airspace for aircraft executing the GPS RWY 11 SIAP at
the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation--(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 10034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565. 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995 and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AEA MD E5 Stevensville, MD [New]
Bay Bridge Airport, MD
(Lat. 38 deg.58'35''N, Long. 76 deg.19'47''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Bay Bridge Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Jamaica, New York on March 22, 1996.
John S. Walker,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-10013 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10006 Revocation of Class E Airspace; Lake Winnebago, MO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18059-18060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10006]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-1]
Revocation of Class E Airspace; Lake Winnebago, MO
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revokes the Class E airspace area at Lake
Winnebago, MO. On June 9, 1995, the Lake Winnebago Airport closed and
Class E airspace at this location is no longer necessary.
EFFECTIVE DATES: 0901 UTC, April 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division,
Air Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530C, Federal Aviation
Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone: (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) removes the Class E airspace area at Lake Winnebago, MO.
The FAA is removing this airspace area as a result of the closure of
the Lake Winnebago Municipal Airport on June 9, 1995. Class E airspace
is no longer needed at this location. Accordingly, since the action
revokes controlled airspace and returns that airspace to the users,
notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
[[Page 18060]]
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE MO E5 Lake Winnebago, MO [Removed]
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on February 18, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-10006 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10005 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Clarksville, VA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18058-18059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10005]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18059]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AEA-05]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Clarksville, VA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Clarksville, VA.
The development of a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 4 at Marks
Municipal Airport has made this action necessary. The intended effect
of this action is to provide adequate controlled airspace for
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Marks Municipal Airport.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Frances T. Jordan, Airspace Specialist, System Management Branch,
AEA-530, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region, Federal Aviation
Administration, Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy International
Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430, telephone: (718) 553-4521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On December 18, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing a Class E
airspace area at Marks Municipal Airport, Clarksville, VA (60 FR
61668). The development of a GPS SIAP at Marks Municipal Airport has
made this action necessary.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C,
dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes a Class E airspace area at Clarksville, VA.
The development of a GPS SIAP at Marks Municipal Airport has made this
action necessary. The intended effect of this action is to provide
adequate Class E airspace for aircraft executing the GP5 RWY 4 SIAP at
the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation--(1) is not ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 10034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995 and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AEA VA E5 Clarksville, VA [New]
Marks Municipal Airport, VA
(Lat. 36 deg.35'45'' N, Long. 78 deg.33'37'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Marks Municipal Airport excluding that
portion within the Chase City Municipal Airport 700 foot Class E
Airspace Area.
* * * * *
Issued in Jamaica, New York on March 22, 1996.
John S. Walker,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-10005 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10004 Airworthiness Standards; Manned Free Balloon Burner Testing
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18220-18223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10004]
[[Page 18219]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 31
Airworthiness Standards; Manned Free Balloon Burner Testing; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 18220]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 31
[Docket No. 27543; Amendment No. 31-7]
RIN 2120-AE87
Airworthiness Standards; Manned Free Balloon Burner Testing
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the certification test requirements for
burners used on manned free balloons. The current test requirements do
not test the burner's most critical operating conditions. This
amendment will increase the current level of safety by requiring more
realistic tests and cut the fuel costs to balloon manufacturers seeking
certification.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
J. Lowell Foster, Standards Office (ACE-110), Small Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone (816) 426-5688.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Statement of the Problem
The current burner certification requirement resembles the testing
requirement for airplane engines. Airplane engines are operated
continuously at high percentage powers, while balloon burners are
operated on an intermittent basis to maintain level or buoyant flight.
The burner requirement calls for maximum fuel flow burning over the
majority of the test time. This requirement does not reflect the fact
that a burner is continually turned on and off every few seconds or
that a minimum heat output condition is much more critical than a
maximum heat output condition. The challenging test conditions for a
burner are short blasts to maximize the thermal shock and operation on
vapor, which can result in the burner coils glowing red.
Since certification testing should simulate flight conditions and
the critical concern is not the duration of operation but the number of
mechanical and thermal cycles, this final rule would change the balloon
burner requirements to include testing of mechanical and thermal
cycles, and testing of operation on vapor. As a result, the burners
would be tested over a 40-hour period instead of 50-hour period.
The Proposal
This amendment is based on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),
Notice No. 93-16, which was published on December 7, 1993 (58 FR
64450). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed to amend
Sec. 31.47(d) to remove 30 test hours at maximum heat output and
require, instead, additional testing that focuses on critical functions
experienced during flight. More specifically, the FAA proposed changes
in the balloon burner requirements to include testing of mechanical and
thermal cycles, and testing of operation on vapor. The burners would be
tested over a 40-hour period instead of 50 hours. The testing would be
for specified periods at maximum, intermediate, and minimum fuel
pressures and would include burn times of 3 to 10 seconds per minute
instead of continuous burning. The term ``intermediate fuel pressure''
would be defined as 40 to 60 percent of the range between the maximum
and minimum applicable fuel pressures in order to provide for testing
the burners near the mid-point of their ranges of operation.
The FAA also proposed to change the word ``heater'' to ``burner''
in Sec. 31.47. The industry universally uses the term ``burner,'' and
this change reflects accepted industry terminology.
Discussion of Comments
Comments to the NPRM were requested with a closing date of February
7, 1994. All comments received have been considered in adopting this
amendment.
The FAA received comments from Transport Canada, which supports the
proposal, and from two prominent balloon manufacturers. One
manufacturer agrees in general with the proposals, but offers three
suggestions that are outside the scope of this proposal. The other
recommends that the FAA adopt the British standard for Sec. 31.47. The
FAA will address these comments in the order they were submitted.
Concerning proposed Sec. 31.47(d)(1)(i), the commenter states,
``Mechanically cycling the main blast valve not only demonstrates wear
but provides the hydraulic shock necessary to adequately test the
entire fuel system. However, the on/off cycle for each system should be
different because of its thermal mass. For example, our burner has two
cast alloy base plates and thin wall Inconel vaporizing coils. Some
burners have very heavy coils and only pipe-type tubing to and from the
blast valve. A pre-test should be done to determine the widest possible
temperature swing of any of the elements that will be `in the fire' and
subject to heat-stress failures. This will provide the on/off time.''
The commenter proposes that the rule be reworded to include, ``a burn
time for each one minute cycle which has been previously established
[by a pre-test to determine the widest possible temperature change of
any of the elements, as discussed above] to provide the maximum thermal
shock to temperature effected [sic] elements, but in no case less then
four seconds.''
The FAA recognizes the merit of this comment concerning a burn time
that would provide the maximum thermal shock to temperature-affected
elements. The intent of proposed Sec. 31.47(d)(1)(i) was to allow each
applicant to pre-determine a burn time for the particular system
undergoing certification testing such that the thermal cycle used in
the testing would provide approximately the maximum difference between
the coolest and hottest temperatures the burner coils and affected
hardware would experience in service. Although the preamble to Notice
No. 93-16 did not refer specifically to testing that would achieve the
maximum temperature differential, it did emphasize the need to simulate
actual flight conditions, during which the burner is subjected to
thermal shock from its intermittent operation. Referring to the extreme
temperature change that occurs when vaporized fuel cools the entire
assembly followed by flames engulfing the vaporizing coils, the notice
stated that the critical concern was the number of mechanical and
thermal cycles.
In order to achieve the necessary thermal shock, the FAA proposed a
burn time range of from three to ten seconds for each one minute cycle
of the test. From within that time range, an applicant, through pre-
certification testing, would determine the burn time that would
maximize the temperature differential experienced by the system's
temperature-affected elements. Although Notice No. 93-16 did not
explain how the FAA arrived at the proposed 3 to 10 second range for
the burn time, that range was proposed because the FAA had learned from
previous certification testing that this time range is reasonable and
reflects the range of burn times within a one-minute cycle from which
the maximum temperature differential may be obtained.
Nevertheless, because, as pointed out by the commenter, the
requirement as proposed did not make clear that the purpose of the 3 to
10 seconds of burn
[[Page 18221]]
time was to ensure that the burner being tested is subjected to the
maximum thermal shock, the regulatory text of Sec. 31.47(d)(1)(i) is
being clarified by adding a sentence to state explicitly that
requirement. The FAA believes that the added requirement to assure that
the maximum thermal shock is achieved during testing reflects the
intent of the proposed amendment and is necessary to increase safety by
more closely simulating flight conditions. Although the commenter
suggested a minimum burn time of four seconds, based on the FAA's prior
certification experience the burn time requirement for each minute
cycle of testing remains at 3 to 10 seconds as proposed.
Referring to Sec. 31.47(d)(1)(iv), the commenter states, ``A pilot
who consistently uses incorrect fuel management techniques may get into
situations where he subjects the burner to the stress of running on
vapor. The degradation of some parts is cumulative and it would be good
to be assured that vaporizing coils, for example, would not fracture
without warning in flight.'' To achieve this goal, the commenter
recommends the FAA double the time for this test.
The FAA has determined that testing for a total of 15 minutes, as
specified in the proposal, should provide confidence that the burner
will not suffer from undue thermal stresses while not imposing an
unwarranted burden on the manufacturer. Manufacturers have told the FAA
that their balloons would not fly long on vapors before the pilot would
notice the balloon descending. The manufacturers state that the heat
output from a burner operating on vapor is not enough for the balloon
to hold altitude. Even with vapor burning constantly, the balloon will
develop an increasing rate of descent. For this reason, several
manufacturers suggested that 30 minutes was extreme and would
constitute a burden to them. The FAA could not justify, based on any
adverse service history, requiring a test of more than the originally
proposed 15 minutes total time of burner operation on vapor; therefore,
the Sec. 31.47(d)(1)(iv) will retain the 15 minute standard as
proposed.
The same commenter offers the following suggested rewrite for
Sec. 31.47(d)(1)(v): ``Fifteen hours of normal flight operation during
which backup burner and pilot lights must be extinguished and relighted
at least twice in each flight hour.'' The commenter justifies this
recommended change by explaining that backup burner and pilot lights
may be easy to relight on the ground when the burner is mounted in a
test fixture but may be difficult to relight when it is in position
during flight.
The FAA acknowledges the merits of this comment concerning backup
burners and notes that currently Sec. 31.47(e) does not specify testing
the backup burner. However, the FAA may not impose an additional burden
on the public without offering the public an opportunity to comment on
the proposed requirements. This comment addresses a matter that is
beyond the scope of the proposed rule change; therefore, it can be
considered only for future rulemaking projects. Section 31.47(d)(1)(v)
is adopted as proposed.
The commenter recommends rewording the proposal for
Sec. 31.47(d)(2) to read as follows: ``The test program for the
secondary or backup operations of the burner must include two hours of
operation of the backup burner with a continuous cycle time of five
minutes on and five minutes off. Test must include extinguishing and
relighting this burner, without the use of the pilot light system, at
least one time per 30 minutes of testing, while under a crosswind
airflow, the speed of which must be equal to the highest demonstrated
maximum sink rate for the balloon systems for which approval is being
sought.'' The commenter's explanation follows:
``The use of the backup burner in flight may include operation for
up to three or four minutes at a time. During several certification
flights, we were required to use only the backup for some flight
maneuvers. For example, on several occasions we did an entire recovery
from Maximum Sink Rate Descent and on another we did almost an entire
flight using the backup burner alone.''
``It is important to do this test with some airflow to simulate
conditions in flight should the burner have to be used during a high
speed descent. Each balloon flies at a different rate because of the
drag coefficient/gross weight, hence the air velocity requirement. In
our testing we use 1300 fpm as a descent rate maximum and if we exceed
it in our certification flights we reduce allowable Max Gross System
Weight. This figure appears in the LIMITATIONS and PERFORMANCE section
of the Aircraft Flight Manual.''
``A condition may occur in flight where the backup burner is
metered down to a low flame and is used as a pilot light system. It is
important that it be demonstrated to light without the use of pilots
[lights].''
Again, the FAA recognizes the merit of this comment concerning
backup burner flameouts and relights. Because this comment addresses a
matter that is beyond the scope of the proposed rule change, it can be
considered only for future rulemaking projects. Accordingly,
Sec. 31.47(d)(2) is adopted as proposed.
The commenter recommends adding new paragraphs (3) and (4) to
Sec. 31.47(d). The recommendation for a new Sec. 31.47(d)(3) is to
require two hours of operation of the pilot light system while under a
crosswind airflow with the wind speed equal to the highest demonstrated
maximum sink rate. The test would induce extinguishing and relighting
the pilot light at least one time per 10 minutes of testing. This test
would include testing a piezo-electric element or other electrical
means of igniting the pilot lights. Again, the commenter's reasoning is
that backup burner and pilot lights may be easy to relight on the
ground when the burner is mounted in a test fixture but may be
difficult to relight when in position during flight. Also, the
commenter believes that the piezo-electric igniters are not as reliable
in airflow as devices currently used.
This comment is also beyond the scope of the proposed rule change
and can be considered only for future rulemaking projects.
The recommendation for a new Sec. 31.47(d)(4) concerns a post-test
teardown of the burner. The commenter proposes adding the following
requirement: ``A teardown of the burner should be done to reveal any
abnormalities.'' Current Sec. 31.47(f) requires that each element of
the burner system be serviceable at the end of the test. The FAA agrees
with the commenter that a teardown inspection at the end of testing is
an acceptable procedure and a means of demonstrating compliance.
However, a teardown inspection is not an airworthiness safety standard.
The term ``serviceable,'' as used in aviation, defines a standard for
airworthiness based on certification testing of the burner and its
components.
The second commenter states that if the goal of international
harmonization is to be approached, the FAA should take into account the
British, German, and French codes in proposing changes to 14 CFR part
31. The commenter also notes that a number of balloon manufacturers and
representatives of European regulatory authorities met at London
Heathrow Airport in March 1992 to consider the member nations'
airworthiness requirements for balloons, and to make recommendations
for a future JAR 31. The commenter includes the British Civil
Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR) wording that was recommended for JAR
31.47. BCAR Sec. 31.47(d) reads as follows:
[[Page 18222]]
The heater system (including the burner unit, controls, fuel
lines, fuel cells, regulators, control valves, and other related
elements) must be substantiated by an endurance test designed to
reflect the limiting conditions likely to be encountered in service,
both in kind and duration. The endurance test proposed by the
manufacturers must be approved by the certification authority.
Though the commenter expresses the view that the version of
Sec. 31.47(d) proposed in No. 93-16 is better than the existing
version, the commenter, nevertheless, asserts that the proposed
requirement is over-specified and will soon be rendered obsolete by
technical change. The commenter further states that the proposals
leaves out some important points, but the commenter did not identify
them.
To adopt the British testing requirement would be beyond the scope
of the NPRM. The FAA does recognize the importance of harmonization and
is currently expending extensive resources to harmonize the Federal
Aviation Regulations with the European Joint Aviation requirement
(JAR). Though the requirements in BCAR Sec. 31.47(d) may accommodate
new technology more readily than those proposed in Notice 93-16, the
British rule requires the manufacturer to develop an endurance test and
have it approved by the certification authority even for current
technology. The proposed amendment of Sec. 31.47(d) provides a specific
minimum requirement for all burners to meet. If changing technology
were to render the proposed requirements obsolete for a new burner, the
FAA may apply ``special conditions'' for new and novel technology (14
CFR 21.16). Accordingly, the rule is adopted as proposed.
International Compatibility
The agency has reviewed corresponding International Civil Aviation
Organization international standards and recommended practices and
Joint Aviation Authorities requirements and has identified no
differences in these amendments and the foreign regulations.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effects of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) will
generate benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order and is not
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;
(3) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities; and (4) will not constitute a barrier to
international trade. These analyses, available in the docket, are
summarized below.
Benefits and Costs
The rule will enhance safety by targeting critical functions and
conditions experienced in actual flight and will significantly reduce
certification testing costs. The current requirements call for a total
of at least 50 hours of testing, which typically consumes about 7,000
gallons of fuel per type certification. The new requirements, in
contrast, are expected to consume about 350 gallons of fuel because the
burners will be tested over a total of 40 hours instead of 50 hours and
be tested about 3 to 10 seconds per minute instead of the full 60
seconds. Applying a price of $1.20 per gallon of propane, the revised
requirements are expected to yield almost $7,800 in net cost savings
per type certification. Accordingly, the FAA finds the rule to be cost-
beneficial.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA requires
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule is expected to have a
``significant (positive or negative) economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.'' Based on the standards and thresholds
specified in FAA Order 2100.14A, Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and
Guidance, the FAA has determined that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The rule will have little or no effect on the sale of U.S. balloons
in foreign markets and the sale of foreign balloons into the United
States.
Federalism Implications
The regulations 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 12866, it is determined that this regulation will not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of the
Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
The FAA proposed to amend the airworthiness standards for testing
balloon burners because test requirements did not test the burner's
most critical operating conditions. This amendment will cut the cost to
balloon manufacturers seeking certification and increase the current
level of safety by requiring more realistic tests.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this
regulation is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
In addition, the FAA certifies that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This regulation is not considered significant under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979). A regulatory evaluation of the regulation, including a
Regulatory Flexibility Determination and International Trade Impact
Analysis, has been placed in the docket. A copy may be obtained by
contacting the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 31
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends part 31 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 31) as follows:
PART 31--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: MANNED FREE BALLOONS
1. The authority citation for part 31 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
2. Section 31.47 is amended by revising the heading and paragraphs
(a) and (d) to read as follows:
[[Page 18223]]
Sec. 31.47 Burners.
(a) If a burner is used to provide the lifting means, the system
must be designed and installed so as to create a fire hazard.
* * * * *
(d) The burner system (including the burner unit, controls, fuel
lines, fuel cells, regulators, control valves, and other related
elements) must be substantiated by an endurance test of at least 40
hours. Each element of the system must be installed and tested to
simulate actual balloon installation and use.
(1) The test program for the main blast valve operation of the
burner must include:
(i) Five hours at the maximum fuel pressure for which approval is
sought, with a burn time for each one minute cycle of three to ten
seconds. The burn time must be established so that each burner is
subjected to the maximum thermal shock for temperature affected
elements;
(ii) Seven and one-half hours at an intermediate fuel pressure,
with a burn time for each one minute cycle of three to ten seconds. An
intermediate fuel pressure is 40 to 60 percent of the range between the
maximum fuel pressure referenced in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section
and minimum fuel pressure referenced in paragraph (d)(1)(iii);
(iii) Six hours and fifteen minutes at the minimum fuel pressure
for which approval is sought, with a burn time for each one minute
cycle of three to ten seconds;
(iv) Fifteen minutes of operation on vapor, with a burn time for
each one minute cycle of at least 30 seconds; and
(v) Fifteen hours of normal flight operation.
(2) The test program for the secondary or backup operation of the
burner must include six hours of operation with a burn time for each
five minute cycle of one minute at an intermediate fuel pressure.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10004 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10003 IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18064-18065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10003]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 95
[Docket No. 28526; Amdt. No. 395]
IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required
IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for
certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a
minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This
regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument
conditions in the affected areas.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, April 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical
Programs Division, Flight Standards Service Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20591;
telephone: (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 95 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a
specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover
points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as
prescribed in part 95.
The Rule
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the
prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid
coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of
frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the
need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and
operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to
published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In
addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this
amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication
date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the
user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those
considerations. In view of the
[[Page 18065]]
close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and
safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before
adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public
interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective
in less than 30 days. The FAA has determined that this regulation only
involves an established body of technical regulations for which
frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them
operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 29, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 95)
is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC,
1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, and; 49 U.S.C. 106(g)
(Revised Pub. L. 97-449, January 12, 1983); and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows:
Revisions to Minimum Enroute IFR Altitudes and Changeover Points
[Amendment 395 Effective Date, April 25, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To MEA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 95.6004 VOR Federal Airway 4 Is Amended To Read in Part
Downs, KY FIX *2300-MOCA.......................... Louisville, KY VORTAC............................. *2600
Sec. 95.6007 VOR Federal Airway 7 Is Amended To Read in Part
Menominee, MI VOR/DME *3000-MOCA.................. Marquette, MI VOR/DME............................. *3600
Sec. 95.6133 VOR Federal Airway 133 Is Amended To Read in Part
Uuper, MI FIX *3000-MOCA.......................... Marquette, MI VOR/DME............................. *6000
Sec. 95.6224 VOR Federal Airway 224 Is Amended To Read in Part
Marquette, MI VOR/DME *2800-MOCA.................. Eston, MI FIX..................................... *6000
Sec. 95.6316 VOR Federal Airway 316 Is Amended to Read in Part
Hermy, MI FIX *3100-MOCA.......................... Marquette, MI VOR/DME............................. *3600
Marquette, MI VOR/DME *2800-MOCA.................. Traen, MI FIX..................................... *6000
Sec. 95.6341 VOR Federal Airway 341 Is Amended To Read in Part
Iron Mountain, MI VORTAC *3000-MOCA............... Marquette, MI VOR/DME............................. *3600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To MEA MAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 95.7588 Jet Route No. 588 Is Amended To Read in Part
Sault Ste Marie, MI VORTAC.................... U.S. Canadian Border.......................... 25000 45000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 95.8003 VOR Federal Airways Changeover Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airway segment Changeover points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Distance From
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V-133 is amended to read in
part:
Escanaba, MI VORTAC...... Marquette, MI 20 Escanaba.
VOR/DME.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-10003 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10002 General Rulemaking Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10002]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 11
[Docket No. 28518; Amendment No. 11-41]
General Rulemaking Procedures
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is making an editorial
change to part 11 by changing the words ``rule making'' and ``rule-
making'' to read ``rulemaking''. This change is being made for
consistency.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clara Thieling, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, AGC-
200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3123.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In response to inquiries as to the uniformity of the spelling of
the word rulemaking, the FAA is making an editorial change to part 11
to change the spelling of ``rule-making'' and ``rule making'' to
``rulemaking''. Because this action is merely a technical amendment,
the FAA finds that prior notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B) are unnecessary. For the same reason, the FAA finds that
good cause exists for making this amendment effective upon publication.
The Amendment
The FAA amends 14 CFR part 11 as follows:
PART 11--GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40109, 40113,
44110, 44502, 44701-44702, 44711, and 46102.
2. In the heading and throughout part 11, remove the words ``rule-
making'' and ``rule making'' wherever they appear, and add the word
``rulemaking'' in their place.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 29, 1996.
Donald P. Byrne,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, Office of the Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-10002 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10001 Amendment to Class E Airspace; Elkins, WV
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10001]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AEA-07]
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Elkins, WV
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies the Class E airspace at Elkins, WV, to
accommodate a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument
Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 23 at Elkins-Randolph County-
Jennings Randolph Field Airport. Additional controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is needed to
accommodate this SIAP and for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
at the airport.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frances T. Jordan., Airspace
System Management Branch, AEA-530, Air Traffic Division, Eastern
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Building #111, John F.
Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430, telephone:
(718) 553-4521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On December 1, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by modifying Class E
airspace at Elkins, WV (60 FR 61669). This action will provide adequate
Class E airspace for IFR operations at Elkins-Randolph County-Jennings
Randolph Field Airport.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C,
dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) modified Class E airspace area at Elkins, WV, to
accommodate a GPS RWY 23 SIAP and for IFR operations at Elkins-Randolph
County-Jennings Randolph field Airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation--(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 10034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995 and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth
* * * * *
AEA WV 35 Elkins, WV [Revised]
Elkins-Randolph County-Jennings Randolph Field Airport
(Lat. 38 deg.53'22'' N, Long. 79 deg.51'26'' W).
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 11-mile radius of Elkins-Randolph County-Jennings Randolph
Field Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Jamaica, New York on March 22, 1996.
John S. Walker,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-10001 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10000 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Auburn, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18060-18061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10000]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWP-14]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Auburn, CA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes a Class E airspace area at Auburn, CA.
The development of a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 7 has made this
action necessary. The intended effect of this action is to provide
adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at Auburn Municipal Airport, Auburn, CA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Buck, Airspace Specialist, System Management Branch, AWP-530,
Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation
Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261,
telephone (310) 725-6556.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On February 26, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing a Class E
airspace area at Auburn, CA (61 FR 7079).
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
this Order.
[[Page 18061]]
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace area at Auburn, CA. The
development of a GPS SIAP to RWY 7 has made this action necessary. The
intended effect of this action is to provide adequate controlled
airspace for aircraft executing the GPS RWY 7 SIAP at Auburn Municipal
Airport, Auburn, CA.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation--(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 10034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporated by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth
* * * * *
AWP CA E5 Auburn, CA [New]
Auburn Municipal Airport, CA
(Lat. 38 deg.57'10'' N, long. 121 deg.04'55'' W).
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 4.3-mile radius of the Auburn Municipal Airport and within
4.3 miles each side of the 291 deg. bearing from Auburn Municipal
Airport, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 5.6 miles northwest
of the Auburn Municipal Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Los Angeles, California, on March 29, 1996.
James H. Snow,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 96-10000 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.